Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

November  2002


Subject: Day 3 of Michael Cloud's Hunger Strike
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:14:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Day 3 of Michael Cloud's Hunger Strike
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:33:27 -0500
From: "Small Government News" <sgn@SmallGovernmentAct.org>
To: libnw@hvisions.com

Small Government News*
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Circulation: 17,605

Official Newsletter of Carla Howell, Libertarian for Governor;
Michael Cloud, Libertarian for U.S. Senate; and Question 1, the
Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts

http://www.SmallGovernmentAct.org http://www.CarlaHowell.org
http://www.MichaelCloud.org

"Vote Yes on 1"

"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead
troublemakers."
--Mignon McLaughlin

"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It's that they can't
see the problem."
--G.K. Chesterton

"Discovery consists in seeing what everybody else has seen. And
thinking something different."
--Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

+++ IN THIS ISSUE +++

-- Day 3 of Michael Cloud's Hunger Strike
-- Michael Cloud's Campaign Activities
-- Carla Howell's Interviews and Events
-- Massive Campaign Effort for Carla Howell's Ballot Question 1

+++ DAY 3 OF MICHAEL CLOUD'S HUNGER STRIKE +++

Release sent to News Media:

Day 3 - Michael Cloud's Hunger Strike
against Boston Globe, WGBH-TV, WHDH-TV, &
WBZ-TV Blackout of his U.S. Senate Campaign

(Wayland) - Today marks Day 3 of Michael Cloud's Hunger Strike
against the Boston Globe and the Boston News Media for their
Blackout and Blacklisting of his U.S. Senate campaign against John
Kerry. Michael Cloud is the ONLY candidate on the Ballot against
John Kerry, yet the Boston Globe has engaged in a McCarthy-style
Blacklisting and Censoring of his Libertarian U.S. Senate campaign
for 14 months.

******

On October 11th, Michael Cloud, for the third time this year, urged
voters to oppose President Bush's "military force resolution" against
Iraq at a News Conference hosted by Carolyn Ryan of the Boston Globe
and
John Henning of WBZ-TV.

******

Michael Cloud's statement for October 31, 2002:

"I Vote for Peace with Iraq - Peace for the Mid-East"

"If elected U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, I will 'Just Vote No'
to War with Iraq," said Michael Cloud. "During the 1960s, President
Johnson fabricated a Gulf of Tonkin Incident - where, allegedly,
North Vietnamese gunboats attacked United States ships in
International Waters. This phony incident enabled President Johnson
to stampede U.S. Representatives and Senators into giving him broad
war powers. A Blank Check for military force. A Blank Check for War. "

"President Bush has no compelling evidence that the government of
Iraq is a clear and present danger to American shores or American
soil," said Mr. Cloud. "George W. Bush's Pro-War propaganda and
rhetoric is driving the American people into a Mid-East quagmire.
America must be strong enough to pursue the path of Peace. As U.S.
Senator, I will vote Yes for defending America's shores and soil.
I will vote Yes for Peace in the Mid-East. I will 'Just Vote No'
on President Bush's Pro-War Resolution."

Michael Cloud was appointed to the United States Air Force Academy
in 1969. He is the son of a decorated U-2 spy pilot.

###

If you would like to help Michael Cloud promote and publicize his
Libertarian message of Personal Responsibility and small government;
if you would like to help him reach out to the out-of-state and
independent media sources who will broadcast his Libertarian message
to the voters of Massachusetts, please make a donation now by
clicking the following link.

https://stronghold.your-site.com/muni/mc/main1.php

+++ MICHAEL CLOUD'S CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES +++

October 30. New England Cable News TV came to campaign headquarters
to interview Michael Cloud. Fox News wrote an article about the
Boston Globe censorship of Michael Cloud's U.S. Senate campaign.
Three other media sources called, and we're now finalizing the
schedule.

October 31. WBUR (NPR Radio) scheduled an interview with Michael
Cloud at campaign headquarters. Michael Cloud called supporters
and volunteers to assist with the final days of his U.S. Senate
campaign.

Dozens of well-wishers have called and emailed Michael Cloud during
his Hunger Strike against the Boston Globe. "I'm really touched by
the kindness of our supporters during this very difficult Hunger
Strike," said Michael Cloud. "I'm grateful to everyone who called
and wrote and put me in their prayers."

+++ CARLA HOWELL'S INTERVIEWS AND EVENTS +++

October 30. Carla Howell and Michael Widmer debate Ballot Question 1
to End the Income Tax on WGBH-TV (PBS Boston)'s Greater Boston. The
debate was hosted by Emily Rooney and aired at 7:15pm.

New England Cable News ran a profile of Carla Howell on the evening
news.

Business Radio 1060 AM interviewed Carla Howell. New England Cable
News taped an interview with Carla Howell at campaign headquarters.
Greg Wayland did the interview. It was fair and balanced. It played
on the evening news.

October 31. Carla Howell spoke about her Libertarian campaign for
Governor to the American Politics class of Professor Tracey La Fauci
at UMass-Lowell. Gretchen Lewis, a supporter, assisted with this.

>From Noon until 4:00pm, Carla Howell and a number of supporters
surveyed the celebrants at Salem's historic Halloween gathering.
The survey question: "What will you do with your $3,000 when we End
the Income Tax in Massachusetts?"

The Boston Globe will find the results very scary! Boo!

+++ MASSIVE CAMPAIGN EFFORT FOR CARLA HOWELL'S BALLOT QUESTION 1 +++

Dear Friends,

We've only got 6 days left to win the hearts and minds of
Massachusetts voters on Carla Howell's Ballot Question 1.

Working class and middle class voters LOVE Ballot Question 1.

The Boston Globe, the Big Boston TV Stations, and the politicians
and special interests who haunt Beacon Hill... they hate the idea
of Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts.

We're mobilizing hundreds of volunteers for these last 6 days.

We've ordered and received Signs, Banners, Fliers, Bumper
Stickers, and more.

We have a huge Winnebago driving around Massachusetts with our
Banners and Yard Signs prominently displayed.

Volunteers will be in front of polls on Election Day. With large
Signs. With Fliers. A huge Libertarian presence.

We know you want to be part of it. Maybe you can't take off Election
Day. Maybe you don't have time between now and November 5th. Maybe
you are one of our out-of-state supporters.

You can be part of this.

How?

You can help us pay for the Banners, Signs, Fliers, Bumper Stickers,
and more.

Here's what we have to fund:

1,000 'Vote Yes on 1' Signs. $1,488.50.

3 huge 'Vote Yes on 1" Banners. $720.

15,000 Bumper Stickers. $2,599.36.

Shipping Bumper Stickers and Fliers to people in Massachusetts.
$1,382.41.

30,000 '9 Common Sense Reason...' Fliers. $1,787.62.

TOTAL: $7,977.89.

A Win on Ballot Question 1? PRICELESS.

We need your help right now to pay off these bills.

These are the last 6 days of the campaign. The last 6 days to move
the ball forward. The last 6 days to shock the Massachusetts
Political Establishment.

There's NO limit to how much you can donate to End the Income Tax
in Massachusetts.

There's NO limit to how much your business can donate to End the
Income Tax in Massachusetts.

There's NO limit to how much good you can do.

If you can donate $5,000 or $10,000 right now, you can make a huge
difference. Will you please make your donation now?

If you're able to donate $2,500 or $1,500 today, you would really
help us out.

Can you donate $850 or $500 or $250 or $100? Will you please donate
now?

Many of us have been hit hard by a pretty tough economy. Maybe you
have, too. Your donation is critical. Whether you donate $100 or $85
or $65 to help us End the Income Tax in Massachusetts - your donation
funds our Banners, Signs, Bumper Stickers, and Fliers.

Please make your most generous donation.

Please go to our secure server and make the largest donation you
can by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover right now:

https://stronghold.your-site.com/muni/sga/sga.php

Or, if you'd prefer, please immediately mail your donation to:

The Committee for Small Government
6 Goodman Lane
Wayland, MA 01778

small government is possible,

Carla Howell & Michael Cloud

P.S. We only have 6 days left. For want of a nail, the shoe was
lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of the horse,
the rider was lost... and for want of the rider, Liberty was lost.
Hammer the nail. Make your donation now. Thank you.

Please go to our secure server and make the largest donation you
can by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover right now:

https://stronghold.your-site.com/muni/sga/sga.php

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please forward this issue of Small Government News to several people
you know who are concerned about tax cuts and Big Government. Please
ask them to subscribe to this newsletter for a pro-freedom, small
government perspective (and please don't forget to remove the
unsubscribe instructions below which have your email).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* "small government is possible", "small government is beautiful",
"Personal Responsibility Sets Us Free" and "Small Government News"
are Service Marks (SM) of Carla Howell and Michael Cloud.

To SUBSCRIBE, mail to: subscribe@SmallGovernmentAct.org (no
message or subject is needed)

To unsubscribe, email to: sgn-request@SmallGovernmentAct.org
and write
unsubscribe libnw@hvisions.com
in the BODY of the email.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: LP candidate blasts Sen. Max Cleland
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:10:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: October 31, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Black voters should 'throw off their chains'
and abandon Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, Libertarian says

ATLANTA, GA -- The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Georgia is
urging black voters to "throw off their chains" and abandon Democrat
Max Cleland because the incumbent supports policies that discriminate
against African-Americans.

"The truth is that Senator Max Cleland has done a lot more to blacks
than he has ever done for blacks," said Libertarian Sandy Thomas. "I'm
asking these traditionally Democratic voters to stop supporting
politicians who back programs that are harming black families."

Cleland, the Democratic incumbent, is locked in a tight re-election
race against Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss and Libertarian Thomas.
An Oct. 20 Mason-Dixon Poll shows Cleland clinging to a slim, 6-point
lead with 12 percent either undecided or favoring Thomas.

"African-Americans now have a historic opportunity to boot Cleland out
of the Senate and punish him for championing federal policies that
have
a racially disparate impact on blacks," Thomas said. "Here are three
examples:"

* The Social Security program, which cheats African-American families
out of a secure retirement.

"A recent study by the RAND Corp. found that because African-Americans
have shorter life expectancies on average than whites, Social Security
ends up transferring up to $10,000 per person from blacks to whites,"
Thomas said. "Cleland insists on perpetuating this inequitable
program, whereas I believe every family should have the right to set
up
a personal retirement account free from government control."

* The War on Drugs, which throws a disproportionate number of blacks
in
jail.

"Though the rate of drug use is roughly equal among blacks and whites,
blacks are six times more likely to be arrested, and nearly two-thirds
of all drug offenders in state prisons are black," said Thomas.
"Cleland is an ardent defender of this racist policy, which has
destroyed the lives and ruined the careers of so many African-
Americans. I pledge to end the drug war and reunite the families that
have been torn apart."

* Government-run schools, which are depriving black children of a
sound education.

"As public schools get worse, affluent suburbanites get to send their
kids to private schools – but poor blacks don't get that choice,"
Thomas said. "Every time school choice has been proposed, Cleland has
responded with a policy of massive resistance. He has resisted school
vouchers; he has resisted charter schools; he has resisted every
federal bill that would have given black kids an equal educational
opportunity.

"I want all African-American children to be able to attend schools
chosen by their parents – not chosen by politicians like Max Cleland."

The bottom line is that a vote for Cleland is a vote to continue every
one of these racially discriminatory programs, Thomas says.

"I'm asking African-Americans to have the courage to choose a
different course and the wisdom to realize that freedom works better
than government," he said. "Voting for me on Tuesday would constitute
a modern-day Emancipation Proclamation."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: DONATE NOW, BEFORE IT'S ILLEGAL!
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:40:56 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

DONATE NOW, BEFORE IT'S ILLEGAL! (NO KIDDING)

Dear Libertarian,

In five days, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," (BCRA) becomes
law.
Passed by Congress last year, BCRA makes many formerly legal donations
to the Libertarian Party a federal crime.

While some of the ways the law will apply to us are still fuzzy, it
appears that BCRA essentially criminalizes our current membership
structure, makes it illegal for our state parties to solicit
memberships for the National Libertarian Party, makes it illegal for
minors to be party members, and even makes it illegal for us to sell
printed materials to our state parties in large quantities, unless
they
file with the Federal Election Commission. It will become a federal
crime to make any donations of over $25,000 per year to the
Libertarian
National Committee.

BCRA will change many aspects of how we have to do business with
vendors and with our state parties, and how we run our national
conventions and publish LP News. We will have to expend an immense sum
just to comply with the new reporting requirements.

And we will no longer be able to take any corporate donations at all,
as we can now in unlimited amounts.

I know that most Libertarians receiving this message will not be in a
position to make a corporate donation. But you may be one of the few
hundred of the 42,000 subscribers to this list who are able to do just
that.

Can you help us with a special one time corporate contribution, before
this important revenue stream dries up for us forever?

Or perhaps, even if you cannot make a corporate donation, you can make
a special one time gift right now to help put us on a better footing
for when the BCRA restrictions start next week. BCRA will likely cost
the Libertarian Party tens of thousands of dollars in compliance
costs,
and prevent tens of thousands of dollars in donations. So we can
really
use your help.

Please go to:
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=lastcorporate&fund=2002-0202

and make your best donation to help us take a bite out of BCRA!

If you are mailing a corporate donation, please send it today, and
best
by FedEx or other overnight service. After November 5, we will be
barred forever from taking it.

Yours for freedom,

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director

PS We have filed suit against BCRA as being an unconstitutional
restriction on our right of free speech. But this could take years to
be resolved. In the meantime, we will have to live under the BCRA
restrictions. Your donation today will help us counter this new
difficulty the government is throwing at us. Thank you!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: We have some great people onboard, let's celebrate now...
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:31:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Last night I wrote a letter in response to Jim Oyler's post regarding
how people have made substantial differences in the progression of our
thinking and in our lives. I left a lot of people out, people who
have had a significant influence in my own life, and I apologize for
that.

Looking around the room intensely once again, so to speak tonight,
there are many more that I would like to mention, sitting here and
metaphorically looking into each of your faces and remembering things
of our not so distant past. So, here's a short list of some of you
within our own circle that have made a pronounced influence in my
life.

* Chris Struble, former LP of Idaho State Chair, encouraged me back in
the mid-1990s to get involved in Region I, and encouraging me to
assume the post to help build the party in that region.

* Joe Roehner (likely misspelled) who's article in the North Idaho
Libertarian newsletter, concerning his reaching out to high school
government high school classes was a real personal inspiration. In
2000, during my candidacy for the state senate race, I took that
challenge, and it was one of the rewarding experiences of the entire
campaign reaching out to high school students in Boundary and Bonner
counties. I want to do that again, annually when I come back.

* Gordon Wilmoth. I can never say enough about this principled man,
and about his devotion to liberty. As a former State Chair, he was
also the type of leader that I will never forget in my lifetime. He
was inspirational to me, and both motivated and contributed greatly to
my 2000 senate race, not in dollars, but in a lot of time and effort
to get me on the ballot (since at that time I was in the Philippines).
He also contributed countless articles and support for the North Idaho
Libertarian newsletter that was seen and read by hundreds. Gordon
inspired team inspiration, and was himself a team player, and thereby
a worthy leader of the team. He even volunteered to come up north
(about a 500+ mile one-way trip) and work with my campaign for a day
or two. That didn't materialize, but his offer of such support will
never be forgotten. It would have been fun, and I am sorry it didn't
work out that way.

* Ted Dunlap. Here is a man who volunteered his free time and effort
to act as the party's Executive Director at a time when the party
really needed such attention, and meticulous planning efforts. He
brought with him a vision that was needed, and was able to execute
keeping the party functioning during a time of upheaval and internal
conflict. Now as our Party's State Chair, he is working under
tremendous stress and obstacles that should NOT be the case. This is
a tremendous handicap, and one in which I would not envy. He needs our
support, and I believe he is willing to give what it takes to support
all of us.

* Bill Anderson. I'm not stretching too much to say, that Bill has
been one guy over a long period of many years, of trying to keep me
honest. Often too, this has brought about rather intense moments, and
often very heated discussions. But, here's the clincher: I supported
Bill's candidacy for ANY position on the Executive Board, because I
knew him rather well in voluminous conversations and exchanges on
various issues and on multiple forums including private email. I knew
that Bill would always support liberty, and that he would become a
huge contribution to the LP of Idaho, even though at the time he (for
personal reasons) was not a member of the national LP. Bill is a
fighter for liberty, and not intimidated at all in confronting fraud
and dishonesty. We still have both, the best and worst of all
possible worlds: private discussions, and sometimes heated arguments
on various issues. But he is still the hard charger, and one who I
believe my trust is well founded, in his efforts as a team player to
reach out in the electronic media to show "our face" on the world and
promote our party. He is also doing a great and responsible job as a
member of the current Executive Board.

* I don't know how many others I might be leaving out. Many. Very
many. Economists such as U/I Professor John Wenders, long time LP
activists as Ron Wittig, Phyllis Shatz (likely misspelled, my
apology), Michelle Eilers, and Stan Smith, who was largely
instrumental in bringing about a LP presence and sense of organization
into north Idaho's main population hub.

I guess what I am saying here is all of YOU, have been very
influential and important part of my life. I feel negligent to not
mention everyone who has inspired me in some way, including Larry
Fullmer. There are so many of you, and I can't even at this time
recall how many people have become such an important influence in my
life, and my goals for promoting liberty in any way that may be
possible. Larry's discussions on the role, or absence of government
was a real inspiration, although I don't agree on the final details.

We can't do this alone. We need each other. Frankly, we don't have
anyone else except ourselves working together to bring about a much
freer world. We need to begin to draw upon each other's strengths, and
support their weaknesses when possible, rather than try and exploit
such weaknesses. Together, we have so much strength in Idaho that I
believe we can make substantial choices as one political party to lead
the way. We have a mandate, of sorts, to do that. Let's not throw
that all away.

There's a sign around here (in the Philippines) that reads like this:
"Look who's talking... but look who's working". Well, this says
something, and again, it is akin to politics. There are a lot of
people doing a lot of talking, but there are a lot of people who are
working for liberty. Sometimes, and most often, they don't have a lot
to say in creating bandwidth as I (and others) do. They just do their
thing to promote liberty, in their own way, using their own time,
talents and resources to make a difference.

I regret here that I didn't mention everyone. In retrospect I will
recall a lot more tomorrow when I read this and say to myself, "Oh
shit, why did I leave him/her out?". My point here however is that I
do remember mostly everything in my space in time, and the people I
admire and respect for their contributions in promoting something that
is very important to all of us, individual liberty, and personal
responsibility.

And, in closing again, I want to say this. If we want to lead in this
desire to restore individual liberty, we must first be the servants of
liberty in all cases. Liberty is the goal, not our own status, or
importance in bringing that about, but rather the goal itself, and
what we individually can bring to help make that possible.

Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 3rd Sniper on the loose
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:38:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I'm forwarding this in total, compliments of Ed Fischang.

Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 3rd Sniper on the loose (fwd)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 03:55:43 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Rick Ford <jford3@nwinternet.com>, DerangeDad@aol.com,Roger
Odorizzi <ab7pg@lakechelanradioclub.com>,David Gray
<loopcity@email.msn.com>, Don & Lynne <DONLYNNEYOYO2POP@aol.com>
CC: Mary Thoma <m_thoma_58@yahoo.com>, Kate Ruef
<hosswrangler@hotmail.com>,Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

*** Forwarded message, originally written by Kenkathywilliams@aol.com
on
02-Nov-02 ***


FW: 3rd Sniper on the loose

There is a 3rd Sniper, but they have a good idea who it is!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Image]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 3rd Sniper on the loose
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:38:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I'm forwarding this in total, compliments of Ed Fischang.

Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 3rd Sniper on the loose (fwd)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 03:55:43 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Rick Ford <jford3@nwinternet.com>, DerangeDad@aol.com,Roger
Odorizzi <ab7pg@lakechelanradioclub.com>,David Gray
<loopcity@email.msn.com>, Don & Lynne <DONLYNNEYOYO2POP@aol.com>
CC: Mary Thoma <m_thoma_58@yahoo.com>, Kate Ruef
<hosswrangler@hotmail.com>,Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

*** Forwarded message, originally written by Kenkathywilliams@aol.com
on
02-Nov-02 ***


FW: 3rd Sniper on the loose

There is a 3rd Sniper, but they have a good idea who it is!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Image]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP ADVISORY: Election results
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:18:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 6, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians victorious in 21 local races,
but ballot initiatives fall short

WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians emerged from Election 2002 buoyed by a
flurry of local wins and record-setting candidate performances, but
disappointed by the defeat of three high-profile statewide
initiatives.

On the positive side, almost two dozen Libertarians were elected to
local office, and Massachusetts LP candidate Michael Cloud set a new
vote-percentage record for a U.S. Senate race.

However, in not-so-good news, all three major Libertarian-led ballot
initiatives - in Massachusetts, Arkansas, and South Dakota - were
defeated, and several Libertarian candidates touted as possible
winners
fell short.

In local election victories:

* In Colorado, Bill Masters was re-elected as San Miguel County
sheriff, while Bob Dempsey was re-elected as San Miguel County coroner
in a partisan race.

* In California, at least eight candidates were elected in contested
races for local, non-partisan offices: Vern Dahl (Oceano Community
Services District); Eric Lund (Cordova Recreation and Park Board,
Sacramento County); Ron Gabbart (Ready Springs Union School District);
Melise Manfre (Orangevale Recreation and Park Board, Sacramento
County); Jim Gardner (San Gorgonio Memorial Health Care District);
Larry Torres (Los Alamos Community Services District); Francis
Trowbridge (Rubidoux Community Services District); and Jack Hickey
(Sequoia Healthcare District, San Mateo County).

In addition, incumbent Bonnie Flickinger was re-elected to the Moreno
Valley City Council (District 4), and Lois Engel was re-elected to the
Ophir Hill Fire District.

* Also in California, six Libertarians were elected to local, non-
partisan office -- but did not appear on the ballot because they were
running without opposition: Marshall Schwartz (Eden Township Hospital
District, Alameda County); Lance Rosmaier (Southwest Healthcare
District, Short Term, Kern County); Jerry A. Mercier (Independence
Ranch Community Services District, San Luis Obispo County); William J.
Alley (Shandon Joint Unified School District, San Luis Obispo County);
Carle Hylkema (Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, Santa
Clara County); and Michael Wharton (Oxnard Harbor District, Ventura
County).

* In North Carolina, Dave Gable came in first in a four-way race for
two positions as Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor (Mecklenburg
County). Gable won 36,895 votes (26.5%) in the non-partisan race.

"Here's to another elected Libertarian in North Carolina!" said Gable.

* In Vermont, Hardy Macia was elected as a Justice of the Peace in
Grand Isle. Macia, who finished sixth out of seven winners in a 12-way
race, won 417 votes.

* In Indiana, Ed Dilts won an unopposed race for a partisan seat on
the
Needham Township Board (Johnson County).

In other significant races:

* In Nevada, James Dan lost by 65.2% to 34.8% to incumbent Democrat
Vonne Chowning in the race for State Assembly (District 28). Dan had
won 45% of the vote in a similar race in 2000.

"His opponent mailed a hit piece using our platform against James,"
said local activist Tim Hagan, explaining the disappointing results.

* In Wisconsin, Ed Thompson won 10.4% of the vote (183,352 votes) in
an
eight-way race for governor. It was the second-best result for a
Libertarian candidate in a gubernatorial race against a Republican and
Democrat in LP history.

"We hoped we would do better," Thompson told the Wisconsin Radio
Network. "I think people just didn't have a chance to see me like the
other candidates and it made a big difference."

However, Thompson won his home town of Tomah (55.9%) and Monroe County
(45.4%) -- and hinted he might run again in the future.

"I want to express my thanks to the countless volunteers and
contributors who helped make this campaign the most successful third-
party campaign for Wisconsin governor in 60 years," said Thompson.
"This race is just the beginning."

* In Illinois, GOP legislator-turned-LP gubernatorial candidate Cal
Skinner won 2% (73,287 votes) -- well short of the 5% required to gain
the LP major party status in the state.

* In Massachusetts, Michael Cloud won 19% of the vote in a two-way
race
against incumbent Democrat John Kerry. It was the best U.S. Senate
result for a Libertarian in party history, and the best by any third-
party candidate in a U.S. Senate race since 1932, according to Richard
Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News.

* In Massachusetts, Carla Howell won 1% of the vote in a five-way race
for governor.

* In Missouri, Jeff Foli won 14.1% of the vote in a three-way race for
State Representative (District 7).

* In California, at least three statewide LP candidates appeared
poised
to win at least 2% of the vote, the threshold required to maintain the
LP's major party status: Dale Ogden (Insurance Commissioner), Gail
Lightfoot (Secretary of State), and Marian Smithson (Treasurer).

* In Vermont, Hardy Macia won 22.5% in a four-way race for two seats
in
the state legislature. Running on both the Libertarian and Republican
lines, Macia won 1,340 votes -- just 208 votes behind the second-place
Democratic finisher.

* In Colorado, a number of Libertarian candidates earned double-digit
percentages, according to state LP Media Director Mike Seebeck.

John Berntson won 16% of the vote for State House (District 14), Steve
Gresh earned 15% for State House (District 20), and Rob Roberts won
14%
for El Paso County Commissioner (District 1).

And in a three-way race for State Senate (District 11), Jeff McQueen
won 9.6% -- three times the difference between the Republican and
Democrat.

"Local Libertarian candidates showed the major parties once again why
they are a force to be reckoned with, improving their vote totals for
the second year in a row," said Seebeck.

* In Florida, 23 LP candidates won over 20% in two-way races for the
State House, reported Florida LP activist Michael Gilson de Lemos.

Candidates breaking the 20% barrier included Barbara Bujak, 20.0%
(District 2); Grier Ellis, 20.3% (District 3); Scott Palmer Carter,
21.7% (District 12); Ty Price, 20.9% (District 17); Brooks H. Nelson,
22.0% (District 23); Lida C. Throckmorton, 23.4% (District 24); James
T. Coakley, 21.5% (District 33); Christopher Michael Wheeler, 24.3%
(District 34); Timothy Moriarty, 24.0% (District 37); John T. Conway,
23.0% (District 40); Louis A. Cashmer, 20.6% (District 41); Mark A.
Howard, 23.2% (District 56); Jason A. Downs, 22.3% (District 63);
Michael A. Krech, 25.1% (District 64); James C. Clifford, 25.8%
(District 65); Dirk Clary, 20.1% (District 72); Travis L. Larson,
24.3%
(District 79); Ronald B. Cadby, (21.5% District 80); John P. Roszman,
24.4% (District 81); Brian Kuszmar, 20.5% (District 91); Michael J.
Guidry, 26.2% (District 113); Thomas William Glaser, 26.3% (District
115); and Mark S. Eckert, 27.9% (District 119).

"The results are more remarkable in that they ran deliberately
extremely low-budget, meet-the-neighbors campaigns," said Gilson de
Lemos.

* In Iowa, gubernatorial candidate Clyde Cleveland won 24,512 votes
(2.4%), coming in third of four candidates.

* In North Carolina, Rachel Mills -- the creator of the nationally
publicized "N.C. Ladies of Liberty" calendar -- won 2,892 votes
(19.3%)
in a two-way race for State House (District 31).

In notable U.S. House races around the USA:

* In California, Maad Abu-Ghazaleh (District 12) won 7%.

* In Massachusetts, Ilana Freedman (District 5) won 6%.

* In Colorado, Biff Baker (District 5) won 6%.

In initiative news:

* In Massachusetts, voters rejected, by a surprisingly narrow margin,
a
sweeping proposal to eliminate the state's income tax.

The proposal, called Ballot Question 1 and sponsored by LP
gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell's Committee for Small Government,
lost by a 53% to 47% margin, shocking political pundits who predicted
it would lose by 20 percentage points or more.

"It goes to show that you can't trust polls," said Howell. "It also
demonstrates that the reporting of how big government must solve
everyone's problems is clearly not representative of what all the
people believe."

The liberal Boston Globe suggested the close vote sent "a strong
signal
to Beacon Hill about distaste for future tax increases as a way to
solve the budget crisis."

Had it passed, the initiative would have trimmed state government
revenues by 40%, and saved Bay State taxpayers about $9 billion
annually.

* In Arkansas, voters rejected a Libertarian-led initiative to abolish
the state's 5.125% sales tax on food and over-the-counter medicine.

With about 50% of the vote counted, the "Ax the Food Tax" initiative
was losing 62% to 38%.

Those numbers were in sharp contrast to pre-election polls, which
showed the proposal winning the support of up to 70% of voters.

"It's a testament to how strongly all the powers of government would
come against us [with a] massive scare campaign," said Karl Kimball,
chairman of the Committee to Ax the Food Tax.

Had it passed, the initiative would have saved state taxpayers about
$400 million a year.

* In South Dakota, a FIJA-style amendment that would have given
criminal defendants the right to argue the merits, validity, and
application of laws was heading for defeat.

With 39% of the precincts counted, Constitutional Amendment A was
losing 79% to 21%.

In other election news, a constitutional amendment to legalize
marijuana in Nevada, which was endorsed but not sponsored by state
Libertarians, was decisively defeated.

Question 9, which would have allowed adults to possess up to three
ounces of marijuana, was rejected by 61% of the state's voters. The
initiative would also have required the legislature to regulate,
cultivate, sell, and tax marijuana.

In Virginia, Libertarian-turned-independent Jacob Hornberger won 7% in
his race for U.S. Senate, losing to both incumbent Republican John
Warner (84%) and independent Nancy B. Spannaus (9%), who is affiliated
with convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche.

In South Dakota, voters rejected, 63% to 37%, an initiative to
legalize
industrial hemp. That proposal, Initiated Measure 1, was supported but
not sponsored by state Libertarians.

In Texas, Republican Ron Paul easily won re-election for U.S. House
(District 14) with 68.05% of the vote, defeating a Democratic
challenger. In 1988, Paul was the LP presidential candidate.

For continually updated results, visit: www.lp.org/campaigns/results/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: GOP control of Congress
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:35:35 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 7, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians urge Americans: Hold onto your wallets
now that GOP controls both House and Senate

WASHINGTON, DC -- Now that Republicans control both houses of Congress
and the presidency, Americans should brace themselves for an era of
skyrocketing federal spending and ballooning budget deficits,
Libertarians say.

"Our prediction is that with a GOP Congress egging him on, George Bush
is going to make Bill Clinton look like a fiscal conservative," said
George Getz, Libertarian Party communications director.

"Even when Republicans controlled only one house of Congress, Bush
managed to sign the first $2 trillion-plus federal budget, throw more
money at Clinton-era programs and propel the deficit toward outer
space. With complete congressional control, expect Bush to go on an
absolute spending rampage."

As GOP officials celebrate their resounding victory in Tuesday's
elections, in which Republicans expanded their House majority and
reclaimed control of the Senate, the White House is reportedly
planning
to "roll out an ambitious legislative agenda."

Unfortunately for taxpayers, Libertarians say, that agenda won't
include a reduction in government.

"Bush's $2 trillion budget is already scheduled to expand by 6 percent
this year," Getz said. "Moreover, social welfare programs under Bush
have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under
six years of Clinton, according to economist Stephen Moore of the Club
for Growth.

"Bush's budget also includes a number of Clinton-era programs, such as
Americorps and the 'Gore tax' on telephone service – not to mention
more money for socialized medicine, government-run schools and farm
welfare."

Now that the Republican president has more members of his own party in
Congress, Americans should expect the spending binge to continue, Getz
said.

"Since no newly elected Republicans have pledged to eliminate any Bush
programs, it's clear that two more years of George Bush equals two
more
years of bloated federal spending," he said.

Another predictable result of a Republican-controlled Congress,
Libertarians say: higher budget deficits.

According to figures from the White House Office of Management and
Budget, Bush is already running a $106 billion deficit, Getz pointed
out.

"Since every government program has to be paid for somehow, the
president has simply chosen deficit spending over outright tax
increases," he said. "In either case, taxpayers get stuck with the
bill."

That's why the only thing that happened on Tuesday is that
a few tax-and-spend Democrats were replaced by borrow-and-spend
Republicans, Libertarians say.

"Now that Republicans have won control over the federal government,"
Getz said, "it's time for Americans to start scrambling to regain
control over their own wallets."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Carolyns Report
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:55:25 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Carolyns Report
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:33:55 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Dear All: I am letting you all know that I lost my bid for county
commisioner but we won the issue on the planning & zoning. I feel very
upbeat and I want all to know that even though I lost I feel like a winner.I
feel that I accompliished so much by just being involved.I got up to
Kalispell and picked up wool blankests that we will be handing out at our
Veterans Dinner on Monday at the Noxon School it starts at 4:00pm and will
go until 7:00 pm. We will have entertainment going on along with door
prizes,raffles,and we will be handing out the wool blankets along with
overshoes, and mittens.All veterans will eat free all others will be $5.00
for adults,$3.50 for children and a $20.00 bill for a family. We will be
serving turkey and all the trimmings along with salmon &meat loaf. If any of
you out there could make it we would love to see you. Thanks To all for your
support. Carolyn

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Press Release: Wyoming Libertarians Achieve Major Party Status
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:42:25 -0700
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

(Draft) Press Release

Wyoming Libertarians Achieve Major Party Status

The Wyoming Libertarian Party today claims major party status,
according to Dave Dawson, Wyoming Libertarian Party Spokesman. LP
candidate Marie Brossman, in the race for Secretary of State, received
29,000 votes, or 17% of the total.

Brossman ran in one of three state wide races that affect a political
party's ballot status under Wyoming law. A "Minor political party" is
one whose candidate achieves between two and ten percent of the vote
in one of the three contests. A "Major political party" is one whose
candidate achieves ten percent or more.

Brossman lives in Lander with her husband, Dennis. She achieved
state wide notice when several newspapers editorialized that she should
have debated her sole opponent, incumbent Joe Meyer. The criticism
shows growing acceptance of Libertarians in Wyoming, Brossman
maintains. "It's much better than being shut out of the debates, as
Libertarians are in many states."

As a statutory major party, the Libertarian Party will now nominate
candidates via primary, rather than by convention. Voting in primary
elections is open to voters registered as members of the
party. Wyoming does not have an open primary.

"These are unofficial results," Dawson cautioned. Libertarians expect
the Secretary of State to certify the results before Monday, November
18, making them official. Dawson does not expect the official results
to be very different.

Contact: Dave Dawson, PO Box 4321, Casper, 82604, 307/237-4648,
selfgovwyo@yahoo.com

Resources:

Wyoming definitions of political parties: WS 22-1-102 (a) (xvii), WS
22-1-102 (a) (xviii), WS 22-1-102 (a) (xxv),
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title22.htm

Wyoming Secretary of State's 2002 General Election Unofficial Results,
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2002/results/02-gsum.htm

Wyoming Libertarian Party web page: http://www.geocities.com/wyolp/.

Wyoming Libertarian Party contact information:
http://www.geocities.com/wyolp/contacts.html

"We won't tolerate a police-state atmosphere at airports."
-- Transportation Security Administration Deputy Steve McHale

"[McHale]'s from the ATF. Isn't that the agency that shoots first?"
-- Krys Bart, Reno/Tahoe airport.

Wall St. Journal 22 March 2002 page 1.

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
_______________________________________________
WyoLP mailing list
WyoLP@zayda.net
http://www.zayda.net/mailman/listinfo/wyolp

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fspcrackerbarrel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Press Release: Wyoming Libertarians Achieve Major Party Status
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:41:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: birvin@allidaho.com, WyoLP@zayda.net

Greetings Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote posted the following draft release...

> (Draft) Press Release
> Wyoming Libertarians Achieve Major Party Status
> The Wyoming Libertarian Party today claims major party status,
> according to Dave Dawson, Wyoming Libertarian Party Spokesman. LP
> candidate Marie Brossman, in the race for Secretary of State,
> received
> 29,000 votes, or 17% of the total.

This is great news Ben! Idaho also had some "firsts" this hear,
including finally reaching State Primary status which is a major
hurdle. It was fun voting in the primary elections this year for a
change.

Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis]
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:46:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Good post. Credit given to the Militia of Montana for passing this along.

Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:09:44 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis
By Michael L. Betsch,
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 08, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) claims its organizational
mission is
to "expose and combat the purveyors of hatred in our midst." However, some
conservatives
say they are offended by the ADL's deliberate efforts to equate the right
wing with hate
groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Low Riders.

The ADL maintains an extensive database of information on a broad range of
"dangerous
extremists" and closely monitors the nationwide activities of the
predominantly anti-Semitic,
white supremacist organizations. The group's website also features a
calendar of "Upcoming
Extremist Events" in order to alert concerned citizens across the country of
hate gatherings
occurring in their cities and towns.

Yet some question why the ADL has issued a warning for the Free American's
2002
Home-Land Security Expo that will take place in McDonough, Georgia, from
Nov. 8-10.

The Georgia event is billed as an "exposition and book fair" and will
feature lectures by
notable conservative commentators Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center
and
Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America. CNSNews.com asked the ADL
to
define the extremist threat that the Home-Land Security Expo poses to
America.

Define 'Extremist'

"I don't know that the ADL has a formal definition for the term
'extremist'," said Mark
Pitcavage, director of fact finding for the ADL. "But you can typically use
the rougher
definition of someone whose views are so far out of the mainstream that they
have
effectively disenfranchised themselves simply because so few people agree
with them," he
said.

Pitcavage said the ADL has labeled the Home-Land Security Expo an extremist
event
because most of the participants and vendors are right-wing extremists,
white supremacists,
anti-government extremists, and conspiracy theorists. And, he said the event
closely
resembles the Y2K "preparedness" trade shows of the 1990s.

"The preparedness expos of the 1990s were sort of traveling trade fairs for
survivalists and
right wing extremists," Pitcavage explained. He said those expos typically
featured booths
exhibiting survival products such as "dried beans" and "shark cartilage"
pills; right-wing
extremists, tax protesters and militias; and white supremacists selling
books and other items.

Pitcavage said the ADL is concerned that the Home-Land Security Expo's
organizer, Clay
Douglas, is trying to revive the extremist trade shows. Douglas is also the
founder of the
Free American, which the ADL has deemed a "conspiracy-oriented magazine that
focuses
on anti-government and anti-Semitic theories."

Conservatives Defend Their Honor

DeWeese, who will discuss the issue of sustainable development at the
Home-Land Security
Expo, said he never would have accepted Douglas' invitation to speak at the
event if he was
anti-Semitic as the ADL accuses him of being.

"I'm massively offended by that and it's wrong," he said. "There is no one
who will be at this
conference who would be a spokesman for anything like that."

DeWeese said he is not surprised that the ADL has labeled the Home-Land
Security Expo
an extremist event. After all, he said the event will feature information
that is important to
people who believe in national sovereignty, limited government and don't
like the United
Nations.

The ADL, he noted, has trouble accepting the notion that conservatives
question
government, taxes and the U.N.

"They want to shut us up," DeWeese said of the ADL. "We have no point that
should be
exposed; we should not be allowed to speak out on these things because it's
dangerous to
peace on earth.

"We are told that we are not allowed to have our point of view; that that
just is not to be
discussed in polite society, that we are extremists, that we are dangerous,
that this is the
reason why we have trouble in this country," DeWeese said. "Well, yeah, it's
probably true
because we say, 'No,' to these things and they don't want that."

Pratt, from Gun Owners of America, also said he was offended that the ADL
would equate
the Home-Land Security Expo with hate groups. He has been invited to discuss
Second
Amendment issues at the weekend event.

Pratt said the ADL is experiencing the same problem the Federal Bureau of
Investigation
faced prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Before then, Pratt said, the
conviction had
always been that the threat to America came from conservatives and the "vast
right wing
conspiracy" that Hilary Clinton feared.

"The ADL has got its similar, ultra-liberal blinders on," Pratt said. "For
them, anything to the
right of Hilary Clinton is a massive threat to the security of the
commonwealth."

Pratt said the ADL has never understood that people might want to take care
of themselves
rather than rely on the government to care for them. Contrary to the liberal
ideology of the
ADL, he said those who attend the Home-Land Security Expo are more than
likely of the
mindset, "No, I think I'll do it myself."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200211\CUL20021108a.html

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis]
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:45:11 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ADL has painted with a broad brush for decades. See for instance their
book, "Danger on the Right". It's so bad that someone who compiled
directories of the USAn extremist left and right, and the occut, labeled
ADL itself "extremist"!

That noted, it's important to pay careful attention to who is accusing
who, and who is the one using a broad brush. "Frank Reichert"
<admin@liberty-northwest.org> kindly posted

> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Group Lumps Conservatives
with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis
> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:09:44 -0700
> From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
> Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
> To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>
>
>
> Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis
> By Michael L. Betsch,
> CNSNews.com Staff Writer
> November 08, 2002

which I reproduce here in full just to show I'm not leaving anything
out.

> (CNSNews.com) - The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) claims its
organizational mission is
> to "expose and combat the purveyors of hatred in our midst." However,
some conservatives
> say they are offended by the ADL's deliberate efforts to equate the
right wing with hate
> groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Low Riders.
>
> The ADL maintains an extensive database of information on a broad
range of "dangerous
> extremists" and closely monitors the nationwide activities of the
predominantly anti-Semitic,
> white supremacist organizations. The group's website also features a
calendar of "Upcoming
> Extremist Events" in order to alert concerned citizens across the
country of hate gatherings
> occurring in their cities and towns.
>
> Yet some question why the ADL has issued a warning for the Free
American's 2002
> Home-Land Security Expo that will take place in McDonough, Georgia,
from Nov. 8-10.
>
> The Georgia event is billed as an "exposition and book fair" and will
feature lectures by
> notable conservative commentators Tom DeWeese of the American Policy
Center and
> Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America. CNSNews.com asked the
ADL to
> define the extremist threat that the Home-Land Security Expo poses to
America.
>
> Define 'Extremist'
>
> "I don't know that the ADL has a formal definition for the term
'extremist'," said Mark
> Pitcavage, director of fact finding for the ADL. "But you can
typically use the rougher
> definition of someone whose views are so far out of the mainstream
that they have
> effectively disenfranchised themselves simply because so few people
agree with them," he
> said.

It seems the above is the only direct quote from ADL touching on the
question. Therefore I would assume the meaning of "extremist" we are to
infer is the above.

> Pitcavage said the ADL has labeled the Home-Land Security Expo an
extremist event
> because most of the participants and vendors are right-wing
extremists, white supremacists,
> anti-government extremists, and conspiracy theorists.

Are we to think the word "and" was really intended above? (Note that
it's not a direct quote.) I suspect the intended word was "or", meaning
that most of the participants and vendors fell into ONE OR MORE of those
categories. That makes a big difference!

> And, he said the event closely
> resembles the Y2K "preparedness" trade shows of the 1990s.
>
> "The preparedness expos of the 1990s were sort of traveling trade
fairs for survivalists and
> right wing extremists," Pitcavage explained. He said those expos
typically featured booths
> exhibiting survival products such as "dried beans" and "shark
cartilage" pills; right-wing
> extremists, tax protesters and militias; and white supremacists
selling books and other items.
>
> Pitcavage said the ADL is concerned that the Home-Land Security Expo's
organizer, Clay
> Douglas, is trying to revive the extremist trade shows. Douglas is
also the founder of the
> Free American, which the ADL has deemed a "conspiracy-oriented
magazine that focuses
> on anti-government and anti-Semitic theories."
>
> Conservatives Defend Their Honor
>
> DeWeese, who will discuss the issue of sustainable development at the
Home-Land Security
> Expo, said he never would have accepted Douglas' invitation to speak
at the event if he was
> anti-Semitic as the ADL accuses him of being.

Where does it say ADL accuses DeWeese of being anti-semitic? If that
accusation was made, I'd expect it to be a direct quote, because that's
a very provocative statement.

> "I'm massively offended by that and it's wrong," he said. "There is no
one who will be at this
> conference who would be a spokesman for anything like that."
>
> DeWeese said he is not surprised that the ADL has labeled the
Home-Land Security Expo
> an extremist event. After all, he said the event will feature
information that is important to
> people who believe in national sovereignty, limited government and
don't like the United
> Nations.
>
> The ADL, he noted, has trouble accepting the notion that conservatives
question
> government, taxes and the U.N.
>
> "They want to shut us up," DeWeese said of the ADL. "We have no point
that should be
> exposed; we should not be allowed to speak out on these things because
it's dangerous to
> peace on earth.
>
> "We are told that we are not allowed to have our point of view; that
that just is not to be
> discussed in polite society, that we are extremists, that we are
dangerous, that this is the
> reason why we have trouble in this country," DeWeese said. "Well,
yeah, it's probably true
> because we say, 'No,' to these things and they don't want that."
>
> Pratt, from Gun Owners of America, also said he was offended that the
ADL would equate
> the Home-Land Security Expo with hate groups. He has been invited to
discuss Second
> Amendment issues at the weekend event.
>
> Pratt said the ADL is experiencing the same problem the Federal Bureau
of Investigation
> faced prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Before then, Pratt
said, the conviction had
> always been that the threat to America came from conservatives and the
"vast right wing
> conspiracy" that Hilary Clinton feared.
>
> "The ADL has got its similar, ultra-liberal blinders on," Pratt said.
"For them, anything to the
> right of Hilary Clinton is a massive threat to the security of the
commonwealth."
>
> Pratt said the ADL has never understood that people might want to take
care of themselves
> rather than rely on the government to care for them. Contrary to the
liberal ideology of the
> ADL, he said those who attend the Home-Land Security Expo are more
than likely of the
> mindset, "No, I think I'll do it myself."
>
>
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200211\CUL2
0021108a.html

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis]
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:22:32 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <listsaver-of-libnw@yahoogroups.com>

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> ADL has painted with a broad brush for decades. See for instance their
> book, "Danger on the Right". It's so bad that someone who compiled
> directories of the USAn extremist left and right, and the occut, labeled
> ADL itself "extremist"!
> That noted, it's important to pay careful attention to who is accusing
> who, and who is the one using a broad brush

The ADL has a lot of interlinks with other so-called human rights
organizations, including the Southern Poverty Law Center (led by the pervert
Morris Dees), and what was once called The Center for Democratic Renewal
(the title itself is a disguise, since it is a militant human rights
organization itself), and has nothing very much with political
democratisation as such.

There are a whole web of such organizations based on regional or geographic
criteria. There are not direct affiliates with the ADL, or the SPLC, but
they might as well be because they freely feed each other with their
notorious "lists" and biographical information on targeted individuals that
they perceive as a political threat to them. I did a fairly recent check,
about a month or two ago, some of these organizations have even changed
their names, apparently because they were being sued for libel for targeting
individuals as anti-Semitics or racists. One of the targets I remember a
couple of years ago was the leader of the Southern Oregon Militia. He was
targeted by the then Director of the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious
Harassment (out of Seattle), another regional hub for local Human Rights
Groups. When I checked I noticed that the NWCAMH had disappeared! Bill
Wasmuth after another name search, also dropped out of sight.

These guys I've personally found to be very smooth, and they are very good
at what they do. I've mentioned before on this list how in 1993 I (as a
staff writer for the Bonners Ferry Herald) and my editor, Bob Miller had a
package done on us by the (above) Center for Democratic Renewal out of
Atlanta, Georgia no less, and Bob and I was in "small town, Idaho"! At any
rate, this "investigative package" made its way across the web of
interlocking organizations and landed on the desk of every major newspaper
in north Idaho and Spokane, Washington. What a smear job. As I understand it
now at least, my major sin was to have the audacity to cover a group called:
"United Citizens for Justice" who were demanding a Grand Jury investigation
into all of the events and circumstances leading up to the murders of Vicki
and Samuel Weaver which occurred on Ruby Ridge, Idaho during the late summer
of 1992.

The above groups apparently didn't want the Weaver family to have any
coverage, nor groups calling for justice. So Bob and I were labelled as
supporters of White Supremacy no less! The only way Bob and I found out
this was going on is when another newspaper's staff member Xeroxed the whole
"press package" and sent us a copy of it. It was laced thoroughly with
allegations that the United Citizens for Justice was a front organization
for White Supremacy, and that the Bonners Ferry Herald had become their
chief mouthpiece in propagating such filth. I know that to be patently
false. United Citizens for Justice's "Mission Statement" and goals were
clearly defined as apolitical, and with one core goal of simply empowering a
Grand Jury independently to look into the deaths of two people who were
murdered by federal police officers.

I was continually being smeared by this group up until the time I left Idaho
in October 1997 and came to the Philippines, while I was the editor for the
Trade n' Save Newspaper.

In 1996, Bill Wasmuth came to Bonners Ferry to hold a "town meeting",
sponsored by the local chapter of the Boundary County Human Rights Task
Force, although Wasmuth himself didn't even reside in Idaho, but rather in
Seattle. At the meeting were an estimated 300 people packed into the
basement of the city library. The forum would NOT allow direct questions by
the audience. Individuals had to write their questions on 3 x 5 cards, and
submit them. The local Human Rights Task Force (not a government
institution, but linked directly to Wasmuth's organization) screen all of
the cards for the "appropriate" questions. As a reporter at many of
Wasmuth's meetings, including Coeur d'Alene, I never once saw one single
time when open questions from the audience were permitted. One of those
"approved" questions however was interesting, "Does your organization
receive funding from the ADL, and if so, what is the percentage of that
funding in relation to all other donations?" Wasmuth did a dance, and said,
"Yes, the Anti Defamation League is one of our contributors. But I am not of
the liberty to discuss the nature of that funding."

Oh well, I've gone through this before. I guess my problem is I have a real
problem when such organizations exist for the purpose of smearing innocent
people because they don't agree with the organization's goals. And a lot of
people have been wrongfully smeared in such a way, usually local politicians
or those associated with media or opinion makers.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Test. forwarding to archives...
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:38:59 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Another archive test...
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:49:01 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: TEST III archives again
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:55:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: difficulties of libertarians with drug reform (long)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:41:20 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <drctalk@drcnet.org>, <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>,
<info@independent.org>

A week ago I got a pair of e-mails illustrating this. One came thru
DRCtalk:

"Tim Meehan" <escapegoat@gmx.net> wrote:

> This fellow apparently has a problem with harm reduction for currently
> legal drugs. Wonder what he thinks about illegal ones?
>
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29440
>
> Liberal lunacy mandates 'drunk dorms' as homeless cure
>
> Posted: October 28, 2002
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> In the midst of budget shortfalls, soaring
> deficits, service cuts, park closings, library shutdowns and desperate
> calls for emergency tax increases, bureaucrats in one of America's
> most allegedly enlightened cities plan to spend $8.7 million on
> comfortable new apartments for homeless drunks.
>
> In what they acknowledge represents an "unconventional approach" to
> the problem of inebriated street people, Seattle officials plan to
> combine federal, state, county and city funds to build 75 units in a
> trendy neighborhood. The alcoholic tenants will enjoy three months of
> free residence, and heavily subsidized rent thereafter. They will also
> receive two free meals a day, along with access to a registered nurse,
> substance-abuse counselors and a mental-health professional.
>
> Best of all, from the point of view of homeless advocates, the new
> facility will allow its residents to consume liquor in their rooms,
> and to invite limited numbers of guests to join them. David Higdon, a
> 51-year-old "chronic alcoholic" interviewed by the Seattle Times,
> applauded this generous approach and explained his preference for
> getting drunk in his own room to collapsing on the sidewalk. "It's
> much less dangerous," he sagely observed. "If I drink too much, black
> out and fall down in my room, there is less chance for me hurting
> myself than if I'm outside. Also, I've been beaten up and robbed when
> drinking on the street. That doesn't happen inside."
>
> The new taxpayer-funded "drunk dorm" has yet to earn a formal title -
> though on my radio show I suggested that city officials consider such
> alliterative appellations as "Transient Towers," "Vagrant Vistas,"
> "Alcoholic Arms," "Bum Bowers" or "Inebriated Estates."
>
> While Mayor Greg Nickels emphatically affirmed his support for this
> visionary project, several prospective neighbors planned a concerted
> attempt to block construction. Officials of a nearby hotel, the newly
> constructed $27 million SpringHill Suites By Marriott, object to the
> unfortunate fact that half of their 234 rooms will look down directly
> on the drunk dorm's back decks, so that tourists can watch local
> wildlife indulge the publicly funded right to party. Partner Robert
> Sours guessed that word would spread among travel agents that finicky
> visitors to the Northwest might not enjoy the unusual view, and the
> hotel would lose business. "If we had known something like this was
> moving in across the alley, we would have never built the hotel," he
> candidly declared.
>
> Another neighbor, Northwest Trophy, expressed similar indignation.
> Owner Rob Anderson, whose family has conducted their business for
> three generations and 24 years at the same site, lamented that "this
> takes our property value and puts it in the toilet."
>
> The insanity behind this project involves the punishment of citizens
> who engage in constructive, desirable behavior - like building
> businesses and creating jobs - for the sake of rewarding those who
> persist in reprehensible and destructive activity - like passing out
> drunk on street corners. Supporters of the costly new apartments
> (which will require continued annual subsidies of at least $650,000
> after the initial investment) insist that their radical approach is
> needed because it represents the only possible way to "lure" chronic
> alcoholics off park benches and sidewalks.
>
> Of course, those of us who remember a more sensible era in American
> life might suggest another lure for the soused street people: the
> prospect of a paddy wagon, handcuffs, the billy club and an
> alcohol-free cell.
>
> Fifty years ago, no one bought the idea that society needed to offer
> an appealing package in order to persuade drunken bums to give up
> their claim on public spaces. Every major city enforced laws against
> vagrancy and public drunkenness. The resulting encounters with the
> criminal justice or state hospital systems (often through involuntary
> commitment) may not have led in every case - or even in most cases -
> to sobriety and personal renewal. But arresting street drunks
> communicated the idea that no one had a right to befoul our shared
> spaces, to camp out on streets or parks at a cost to hard- working
> citizens whose tax money financed those very facilities.
>
> Until the wrong-headed de-institutionalization reforms of the 1960s,
> police departments, private charities, medical institutions and
> private businesses worked together to push vagrants - quite
> forcefully, if necessary - into shelters, rescue missions, hospitals
> or the care of embarrassed family members as alternatives to jail.
>
> The main beneficiaries of the old efforts to avoid tramp-infested
> downtowns weren't rich people - since plutocrats could always retreat
> to their gated communities and acres of private gardens. Working-class
> and middle-class Americans, on the other hand, depend on our civic
> streetscape and green space for both their livelihood and relaxation.
>
> Homeless advocates, who thrive off the endlessly prolonged misery of
> their "clients," react indignantly to the very notion of clearing
> transients from the streets and squares, but ignore the obvious fact
> that the current situation hardly serves the bums themselves. If
> generous, liberal and wildly expensive public policies actually worked
> to "cure" homelessness, then why do the most homeless-friendly cities
> (San Francisco comes instantly to mind) continue to boast the largest
> - and constantly expanding - populations of chronic vagrants?
>
> Even Santa Monica, Calif., which famously hosted public-feeding
> programs for transients from the steps of city hall, recently enacted
> controversial reforms to crack down on the seaside town's enormous
> "homeless community." Isn't it obvious that providing benefits like
> free meals and free accommodations for a troubled group of people only
> encourages the expansion of that subculture within a given
> municipality?
>
> With the ongoing controversy over the ludicrous idea of erecting a new
> apartment complex for street alcoholics, Seattle may indeed lead the
> way for the rest of America - but not in the way city leaders
> intended. The proposed drunk dorm won't provide a bold new model for
> the rest of the country to follow, but it may constitute a glaring
> example of bureaucratic lunacy spectacular enough to inspire a
> nationwide reappraisal of our appallingly illogical approach to
> homelessness.
> --

There was no response. (However, that's par for the course on DRCtalk,
where only certain threads catch on.) So we can see that Tim Meehan
thinks of this sort of thing as a harm reduction measure, and that
someone who opposes it on the grounds expressed above is against harm
reduction per se. Harm reduction's being such a substantial strain of
the drug reform movement, it makes it difficult for libertarians to be
seen consistently as drug reformers.

Meanwhile from The Week Online from DRCnet came:
================

5. DRCNet Interview: Dr. Harry G. Levine
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/261.html#harrylevine

Queen's College/CUNY sociologist Harry G. Levine is perhaps best
known to drug reformers as coauthor (with Craig Reinarman) of
"Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice," a shattering
expose of fabrication and demonization amidst a drug crisis. But
Levine has long toiled in the field of drug policy research, and
this month his paper, "The Secret of Worldwide Drug Prohibition:
The Varieties and Uses of Drug Prohibition," was published in the
current issue of the Independent Review, the publication of the
Independent Institute, a libertarian leaning think tank.

In the paper, Levine argues that global prohibition exists not
only because nations want to protect the public health and safety,
but also because the perpetual war on drugs has so many other uses
for governments, politicians and various organizations. Levine's
article tackles an issue that drug reformers have wondered about
for years: If drug prohibition does not serve its stated purpose
-- making the world safe from drugs -- and it clearly does not,
why does it continue to exist? Does it serve some latent
function? Is it inertia? Is it a conspiracy?

You can read a version of Levine's answers at
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.secret.html online. The Week
Online spoke Thursday with Levine about the paper and much more.

[my snip - RMG]

WOL: You have some interesting things to say about harm
reduction. You write that harm reduction tolerates drug
prohibition just as it tolerates drug use, and that it seeks to
reduce the harm of both. What are the political implications of
the harm reduction approach for ending prohibition?

Levine: Harm reduction is a very good thing. Harm reduction is
probably the most important public health movement to emerge in
the last twenty years or more years, and it is the first
international movement to challenge the more criminalized forms of
drug prohibition. Its effect, if not always its intent, is to
move drug policies toward the decriminalized, regulated end of the
spectrum. Some harm reductionists don't consider themselves drug
reformers, but in the course of pursuing improvements in public
health, harm reduction often requires changes in policy that
reduce the punitiveness of drug prohibition.

Interestingly, harm reduction's approach to drug prohibition is
the same as its approach to drug use. It seeks to reduce the
harmful effects of drug use without requiring that users be drug-
free; harm reduction also seeks to reduce the harmful effects of
drug prohibition without requiring that countries be prohibition-
free. Harm reduction offers a radically tolerant and pragmatic
approach to both drug use and drug prohibition: It assumes
neither are going away any time soon and suggests therefore that
reasonable and responsible people try to persuade both those who
use drugs, and those who use drug prohibition, to minimize the
harms that their activities produce.

[my snip - RMG]

WOL: You write about the "romantic view of the coercive state,"
which sounds like a libertarian argument for less state power.
Are you a libertarian, and if so what kind?

I am absolutely a civil libertarian. I am a member of the ACLU
and a graduate of Brandeis University, named after Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis, who was the Supreme Court's first great
modern champion of civil liberties. He would be appalled by urine
drug tests and much else done in the name of the war on drugs.
Brandeis was also a defender of ordinary people against corporate
power as well as government power. He was called "the people's
lawyer," and he campaigned for consumer protection, women's rights
and against monopolistic business practices. He was also the
first lawyer and judge to passionately argue that the Constitution
gave the right to privacy.

Nowadays many people learn of the civil liberties movement from
The Libertarian Party and related organizations which, I believe,
mainly articulate what is called a "free-market" or "right-wing"
libertarian perspective. This movement has grown remarkably since
the 1970s, and they have done excellent work on many civil
liberties issues, including repeatedly pointing out the awfulness
and repressiveness of the war on drugs. William F. Buckley Jr.,
the economist Milton Friedman, the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and
the Cato Institute are well known free-market or right-wing
libertarians. My article on "World-Wide Drug Prohibition" has
just come out in the Independent Review, which is certainly
sympathetic to free-market libertarian perspectives.

However, I myself come from a more left-wing libertarian tradition
that includes Justice Brandeis, the founders of the ACLU and much
of the early civil rights movement. Ira Glasser has called such
people "social justice libertarians," and I think it's a good
name. Both of my parents -- one Irish from the mid-west, the
other Jewish from New York -- were staunch civil libertarians, and
they just as strongly supported social and economic justice for
ordinary men, women and their families. On both sides of my
family, I am actually a third generation social justice
libertarian.

Social justice libertarians see the battle for civil liberties and
civil rights as linked with the struggles of working people, and
of the poor, exploited and discriminated against. The modern
civil liberties movement was created after World War I by social
justice or left-wing libertarians, and most of the 20th century
court cases over freedom of speech, press, civil rights, and more
were won by them.

[Note especially next para. - RMG]

I think nearly everyone who strongly supports drug policy reform,
decriminalization, and harm reduction policies is probably a
libertarian of some sort. They just may not know it yet. I
suspect that among the most active drug policy reformers, more
people are likely social-justice libertarians than free-market
libertarians. My sense is that right-wing libertarians have been
courageous, fierce, articulate critics of drug prohibition laws
and policies, but they have not thus far been strong supporters of
harm reduction programs or even of much drug decriminalization. I
think that harm reduction has been created and developed by people
who are essentially left libertarians. I also suspect that the
people working on the medical marijuana campaigns have been
disproportionately what I call social justice libertarians.

Unfortunately, there is no formal organization or movement of
social justice libertarians. Many of the people who do work for
the ACLU may themselves be social justice libertarians, but the
ACLU itself is not a think tank devoted to developing political
thought like Cato or the Independent Institute. Rather, the ACLU
is primarily the most important activist organization dedicated to
fighting against suppression of anybody's civil liberties,
including Nazis and Klu Klux Klanners.

I hope one consequence of the growing opposition to criminalized
drug prohibition will be a strengthened movement for civil
liberties in America and other countries. I also hope that we
left-wing libertarians will soon get our act together and openly
stand with right-wing libertarians -- as libertarians -- against
punitive drug prohibition, against the US drug war, and for the
civil liberties and civil rights of people who use the currently
illegal drugs.

[my snip - RMG]

I have a personal web site -- http://www.hereinstead.com -- where
I have put up some of my writings, along with jokes and various
other things. When this interview comes out, I'll put it up there
too.

================

There's an additional problem dividing libertarians from much of the
drug reform movement besides the individual-justice-vs.-social-justice
orientation Harry notes above, and that's contained within his
explanation of harm reduction. Movement libertarians, because of their
moral orientation, have a great deal of trouble with such compromise,
and for that reason have trouble acting pragmatically to make friends
and gains, and not just in drug reform. The idea of tolerating drug
prohibition while minimizing its harms tends to strike libertarians as a
deal with the devil, or as a useless stance, because the activists want
mostly to exhort people to the rightness of the ideas rather than to
even tactily concede such ground while making a practical advance.
They'd rather be right than free, or at least freer.

In his recent campaign for governor of New York, Libertarian Party
nominee Scott Jeffrey was criticized within LP for targeting marijuana
prohibition while not taking as many opportunities to attack other drug
laws. It wouldn't've bothered as many had he downplayed drug reform
entirely, it seems, but once he made that the major focus it became a
source of criticism for not being, or sounding, extreme enough.

That kind of orientation even tends to keep conservatives out of drug
reform. To them, using a certain substance in a non-medical way is
either right or wrong, and once that decision is made quibbling over
what to do about it is trivial. It's either traditional and therefore
right, or untraditional and therefore wrong. And since social
engineering is per se a bad thing, attempts to discourage certain
activities without putting legal controls on them, especially in fields
where legal controls have been practiced, are anathema. So some
conservatives would accept broad prohibition of tobacco trade & use
before they'd accept prohibition of its use at certain places & times,
or heavy taxes on the trade.

These factors tend within the USA to largely leave drug reform as a
project of the "left". That orientation in turn tends to make it hard
for them to roll logs with non-left activists; it's a self-accelerating
process, the insulation. (Libertarians tend to experience that
isolation is ALL directions!) Grover Norquist has been very successful
in putting together what he called The Leave Us Alone Coalition. This
is a loose network of interests, many of whom will go to each others'
aid by grass roots lobbying when alerted by a fax network of impending
legislative or judicial intrusion on their liberty. When asked whether
drug reformers can be gotten into that tent, he sighed and explained
that they tended not to coalit well with the other groups. I think
that's basically a reflection of the aforementioned "left" dominance and
the discomfort of that "left" when it comes to dealing with the
non-"left" people they're not used to having around. (It also doesn't
help them that the Leave Us Alone Coalition is mostly oriented toward
preserving existing liberties against further encroachment, and is
itself not used to an environment such as narcotics where although there
are measures to oppose, it's largely a matter of trying to gain ground
that was lost long ago. There's nothing substantial within the USA to
join the coalition like a Junkiebund, for instance.)

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: difficulties of libertarians with drug reform (long)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:05:00 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I should've mentioned that Harry Levine has himself talked about the
mistake it is to assume that the "left" has been consistently pro drug
reform too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THE LIGHTHOUSE 11/11/02: Measuring Economic Freedom
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:57:41 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This subject's been bandied about here, so I'll throw this in I just got
from

> THE LIGHTHOUSE
> "Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..."
> Vol. 4, Issue 45
> November 11, 2002
>
> Welcome to THE LIGHTHOUSE, the weekly e-mail newsletter of The
> Independent Institute, the non-politicized public-policy research
> organization. We provide you with updates of the Institute's current
> research, publications, events and media programs, plus commentary on
> current affairs.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IN THIS WEEK'S ISSUE:
> 1. Veterans Day: Remembering the Birth of Leviathan
> 2. Schools Vouchers vs. Tax Credits
> 3. Measuring Economic Freedom
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MEASURING ECONOMIC FREEDOM
>
> Is the world becoming more economically free or less? Every year sees
> the publication of sundry indexes on economic freedom that provide
> endless chit-chat for those who care about questions on the status of
> liberty.
>
> Unfortunately, those indexes too often play up the science of
> statistics while downplaying the art of inference. But as Independent
> Institute research fellow Pierre Lemieux argues in the NATIONAL POST,
> "the indexes miss something about the deep meaning and the secure
> character of economic freedom."
>
> Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, are given high marks because
> the first has relatively sound money and free trade and the second
> has little regulation and relatively free trade. Yet in Singapore's
> mandatory pension scheme ensures that the government controls about
> 40 percent of all earned income. And the government of Hong Kong owns
> all the land and issues threats against its opponents.
>
> Other anomalies abound. The Heritage/Wall Street Journal index ranks
> Estonia fourth overall, because it scores high on trade, monetary
> policy, foreign investment and wage and price flexibility. The
> Cato/Fraser index, on the other hand, ranks Estonia as the 35th
> economically freest country because it uses a different set of
> criteria.
>
> "These indexes are only very rough approximations of reality,"
> Lemieux continues, "so rough that they are either useless or
> misleading. Although both indexes do show some correlation between
> prosperity and measures of economic freedom, the Heritage/WSJ index
> concludes that 'repressed' countries (i.e., the ones with less
> economic freedom) have larger incomes per capita than the group of
> 'mostly unfree.'"
>
> The Cato/Fraser index also overlooks the enormous growth of federal
> regulations in the United States.
>
> "The indexes miss all the new regulations in the form of tighter
> surveillance and control of participants' behaviour in financial
> markets (disclosure, insider trading, suspected money laundering,
> etc.), as well as international cartelization of state power like in
> the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's] assault
> on international tax competition.
>
> "While relatively pessimistic about the ranking of civilized
> countries (in North America and Western Europe), the indexes seem
> naively optimistic on their evolution. They thus give us a false
> sense of contentment. At best, they provide our politicians and
> bureaucrats with another tool to persuade us that we live in 'the
> best of all worlds,' as Candide would say. At worst, it gives them
> unreliable data to bring us there willy-nilly."
>
> See "Is This Freedom?" by Pierre Lemieux (THE NATIONAL POST, 11/11/02)
>
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=B696F790-46DC-4820-
A83B-261571F098B0
>
> Also see:
>
> "Are We All Capitalists Now?" by John R. Hanson II (THE INDEPENDENT
> REVIEW, Spring 1999)
> http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/TIR34_hanson.html
>
> "Prosperity and Economic Freedom: A Virtuous Circle," by John R.
> Hanson II (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Spring 2000)
> http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/TIR44Hanson.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE LIGHTHOUSE, edited by Carl P. Close, is made possible by the
> generous contributions of supporters of The Independent Institute. If
> you enjoy THE LIGHTHOUSE, please consider making a donation to The
> Independent Institute. For details on the Independent Associate
> Membership program, see
> http://www.independent.org/tii/tii_info/associat.html or contact us
> by phone at 510-632-1366, e-mail at info@independent.org, or snail
> mail to The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA
> 94621-1428. All contributions are tax-deductible. Thank you!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see
> http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For information on books and other publications from The Independent
> Institute, see
> http://www.independent.org/tii/pubs.html.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For information on The Independent Institute's upcoming Independent
> Policy Forums, see http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/events.html.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to The Lighthouse, please go to
> http://www.independent.org/subscribe.html, choose "subscribe" (or
> "unsubscribe"), enter your e-mail address and select "Go."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE LIGHTHOUSE
> ISSN 1526-173X
> Copyright © 2002 The Independent Institute
> 100 Swan Way
> Oakland, CA 94621-1428
> (510) 632-1366 phone
> (510) 568-6040 fax

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: To whom it may concern...
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:11:38 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
"Stan Smith" <parkside@icehouse.net>,
"Ryan Davidson" <Lonegunmanradio@aol.com>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>, <Rent2own1@aol.com>,
"Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<michael@Gabrielcomm.net>,
"Michael Gollaher" <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
"Lowell Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>,
"Larry Fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, <jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
"James Oyler" <constrct@micron.net>, <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
"Gordon Wilmoth" <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
"Donald Morgan" <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>,
"David Terry" <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
"Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>,
"Brook Wilmoth" <gnarfling@yahoo.com>,
"Boardmembers" <boardmembers@lp-idaho.org>, <birvin@allidaho.com>,
"Bill Anderson" <bill.anderson@libc.org>

Greetings again Missy!

You wrote:
> Sorry, Frank, this strikes me as mighty self-righteous. I suppose
> you'd reconcile with the devil himself? Perhaps you'd like to
> reconcile with Daniel Adams? Where do you draw the line?

Excuse me. This is now off topic as far as I am concerned.

You, weren't elected to anything as I can recall. So you have no voice in
this other than perhaps as a member of the Party, as I am. Tell your husband
to respond to the traffic, if he so wishes; he was
elected State Chair. So far, he hasn't answered the last three of my last
personal posts. Neither was Don Morgan, I guess you're both in the same boat
as far as I am concerned. I'm just tired of the crap. Let's get it over
with.
If your husband has time, pass this on to him in due course, I'm not dealing
with this any longer. And, I certainly made it clear that I want no part in
this fiasco.

Nothing self righteous about any of this. Just the facts mam. Just the
facts. Tell hubby to either lead or get of the way. Do I sound different
today? Well, I guess you didn't read my previous post very well, now did
you? I'm getting rather sick of this crap. Since you are not a part of the
solution, let's let the process deal with that. I am no longer a part of
that process by my own choice. I wasn't elected to do anything.

And, one other thing Missy. Everything is PUBLIC here as of now. No private,
or covert postings. You send something to me like this again, and I send it
out accordingly to all concerned. In other words, I'm passing this on, for
what it might be worth, to everyone concerned, as I expect all communication
will herewith from this time forward will commence. I want to get this over
with, and until the principles in this refuse to address any of this, I
don't care any more. You're hardly a principle, maybe a nagging wife to the
State Chair, who ought to be making his own decisions right now.

Sorry if I'm blunt. I often am when things get this ridiculous. And I'm also
tired of dealing with delegated representives of people who exist in the
background somewhere. This goes to the world Missy, as everything else you
send me. Remember that please. I'm done with this crap. Tell hubby to
engage in this this crap, or don't bother me with any of it anymore, because
I have more personal things to attend to at this moment.

Again, please refer this to hubby, HE hasn't responded to my last three
requests for clarification either.

Warmest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: To whom it may concern...
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:52:00 -0700
From: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
To: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>, "Stan Smith" <parkside@icehouse.net>,
"Ryan Davidson" <Lonegunmanradio@aol.com>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>, <Rent2own1@aol.com>,
"Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, <michael@Gabrielcomm.net>,
"Michael Gollaher" <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
"Lowell Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>,
"Larry Fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, <jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
"James Oyler" <constrct@micron.net>, <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
"Gordon Wilmoth" <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
"Donald Morgan" <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>,
"David Terry" <davidt@onlinemac.com>, "Brook Wilmoth" <gnarfling@yahoo.com>,
"Boardmembers" <boardmembers@lp-idaho.org>, <birvin@allidaho.com>,
"Bill Anderson" <bill.anderson@libc.org>

At 2:11 AM +0800 11/13/02, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
>Nothing self righteous about any of this. Just the facts mam. Just the
>facts. Tell hubby to either lead or get of the way.

Wow, Frank! You sound like me! So are you losing your principles, or
do you just want to see this party become a real political party
again?

I'm fed up as well.

Ted: If you don't call the EC meeting, then I will. If the Chair is
incapable of acting, then the Vice Chair shall do so in its place.
Look it up.

I expect a reply on this. Declare the meeting.

DAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: To whom it may concern...
Date: 12 Nov 2002 13:30:44 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>, Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>, Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>, Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>, Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>, Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>, Michelle Eilers <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, michael@Gabrielcomm.net, Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>, Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, libnw@immosys.com, Larry Fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, jlo@nichebuilders.com, James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>, Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>, Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>, David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>, Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>, birvin@allidaho.com, Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>, Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 10:52, Dan Gookin wrote:
> At 2:11 AM +0800 11/13/02, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
...
>
> Ted: If you don't call the EC meeting, then I will. If the Chair is
> incapable of acting, then the Vice Chair shall do so in its place.
> Look it up.

First you'd have to prove him *incapable*. So far, I haven't seen that.

That aside we need to specify just what the meeting is for. We need to
lay out an agenda. There is no point in a having a meeting just to whine
and gripe. So far, I haven't seen anyone say *why* they want one, just
that they do.

So, I'll be the first to offer things the EC must deal with.

There was a vote made at the last meeting to discuss potential members
to the Judicial committee. So far, no discussion has happened.

There is currently a couple of vacant spots in non-voting constitutional
officers: finance chairperson (responsible for fund raising) and
Publicity Officer (hey, I didn't make the name up!). These need to be
filled.

Now the big one: Membership.
Our current membership system is no longer legal. This may change in the
future, but for now, it is illegal for the party to solicit memberships
at national w/o having a State Federal committee, the details of which
are still unclear.

It is my considered opinion that we must establish a state-only
membership function. National members would still be recognized.
However, since we can not "solicit" them, the state option would be the
one we published and pushed. I would propose that the $25 fee be split
15/10 Region/State.

This would provide each region funds to expand w/o state level
intervention, or dependencies, and provide the state funds needed to
handle state level affairs.

Now, let us do this meeting *right*, by laying out proposals, etc. PRIOR
to the meeting, and far enough in advance to actually read through,
analyze, discuss, and research them, rather than just tossing them
willy-nilly around the meeting, and winding up tabling most for further
discussion.

As a result of the amendments at the last convention, the party will
incur costs for the meeting if it is done via phone conferencing. We can
utilize email to *DISCUSS* proposals, or we can use the forums on the
website, where *everyone* with Internet access can see them and
participate. The point is to not have a 3-5 hour meeting debating the
details of a set of proposals, etc.. Email/Internet forums are a cheaper
alternative, and provide clear records as opposed to the human mind. It
is, however, as several of the members of the EC have noted, not apropos
for a meeting (nor is it legal, the rules state "live communication). We
*can* discuss things however.

This means that we should not rush into having the meetings ASAP, that
way we do it the right way. unless we were to have an emergency meeting
for the SOLE purpose of handling the membership issue --the only one
that is truly pressing for business-- I would suggest we look at a least
a couple of weeks, to allow for proposals to circulate and be discussed.
This also provides the Regional Reps to solicit and incorporate the
input of their constituents.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: To whom it may concern...
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:55:07 -0700
From: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
To: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>, Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>, Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
Michelle Eilers <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, michael@Gabrielcomm.net,
Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, libnw@immosys.com,
Larry Fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, jlo@nichebuilders.com,
James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>,
Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>, David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>, birvin@allidaho.com,
Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>, Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

I wrote:

> > Ted: If you don't call the EC meeting, then I will. If the Chair is
>> incapable of acting, then the Vice Chair shall do so in its place.
>> Look it up.

And then Bill commented (as I expected he would):

>First you'd have to prove him *incapable*. So far, I haven't seen that.

You're right. We haven't seen anything in fact from the Chairman.
Therefore we need a litmus test of capability. I believe responding
to the e-mail should enough. If he fails to do that, then I may try a
written letter or FedX. And if he fails to do that, can we be then
certain that is is "incapable" of calling a meeting? At what point
does that kick in?

>That aside we need to specify just what the meeting is for. We need to
>lay out an agenda. There is no point in a having a meeting just to whine
>and gripe. So far, I haven't seen anyone say *why* they want one, just
>that they do.

I was under the impression that we are required to meet four times a
year, though I may be wrong. The last "meeting" was a while back so I
would assume there would be one now. That's my "assume." I own it.

>So, I'll be the first to offer things the EC must deal with.
>
>There was a vote made at the last meeting to discuss potential members
>to the Judicial committee. So far, no discussion has happened.

Agreed. A standing Judicial Committee should be approved.

>There is currently a couple of vacant spots in non-voting constitutional
>officers: finance chairperson (responsible for fund raising) and
>Publicity Officer (hey, I didn't make the name up!). These need to be
>filled.

Agreed. Whole-heartedly!

>Now the big one: Membership.
>Our current membership system is no longer legal. This may change in the
>future, but for now, it is illegal for the party to solicit memberships
>at national w/o having a State Federal committee, the details of which
>are still unclear.
>
>
>It is my considered opinion that we must establish a state-only
>membership function. National members would still be recognized.
>However, since we can not "solicit" them, the state option would be the
>one we published and pushed. I would propose that the $25 fee be split
>15/10 Region/State.
>
>This would provide each region funds to expand w/o state level
>intervention, or dependencies, and provide the state funds needed to
>handle state level affairs.

Disagree, but I suppose that's what meetings are for. I'd be
interested in hearing more of your arguments, especially in what
other states do either way.

Further, I would like to add this point: Seeing how there is
discussion of removing various officers from the EC, I would be in
favor of assigning the Judicial Committee the job of investigating
said officers and submitting a report on the information gathered
with a recommendation to the EC.

Also, I would like to see crafted a declaration of State Party
principles to be presented at the next convention, pending unanimous
consent.

>Now, let us do this meeting *right*, by laying out proposals, etc. PRIOR
>to the meeting, and far enough in advance to actually read through,
>analyze, discuss, and research them, rather than just tossing them
>willy-nilly around the meeting, and winding up tabling most for further
>discussion.

Agreed.

>As a result of the amendments at the last convention, the party will
>incur costs for the meeting if it is done via phone conferencing. We can
>utilize email to *DISCUSS* proposals, or we can use the forums on the
>website, where *everyone* with Internet access can see them and
>participate. The point is to not have a 3-5 hour meeting debating the
>details of a set of proposals, etc.. Email/Internet forums are a cheaper
>alternative, and provide clear records as opposed to the human mind. It
>is, however, as several of the members of the EC have noted, not apropos
>for a meeting (nor is it legal, the rules state "live communication). We
>*can* discuss things however.

I favor meeting face-to-face. At one time it was discussed that we
hold the meeting in several locations: Boise, Pocatello, CDA and
possibly somewhere mid-state as well. Don't know what happened to
that notion.
>
>This means that we should not rush into having the meetings ASAP, that
>way we do it the right way. unless we were to have an emergency meeting
>for the SOLE purpose of handling the membership issue --the only one
>that is truly pressing for business-- I would suggest we look at a least
>a couple of weeks, to allow for proposals to circulate and be discussed.
>This also provides the Regional Reps to solicit and incorporate the
>input of their constituents.

Agreed again. But the first step is to fix a date. I'm waiting for
that. Then we can bicker back and forth as we usually do. But if it's
going to be face-to-face, we need to give people far away time to
make plans.

DAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: To whom it may concern...
Date: 12 Nov 2002 14:57:23 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>, Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>, Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>, Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>, Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>, Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>, Michelle Eilers <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, michael@Gabrielcomm.net, Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>, Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, libnw@immosys.com, Larry Fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, jlo@nichebuilders.com, James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>, Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>, Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>, David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>, Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>, birvin@allidaho.com, Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>, Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 12:55, Dan Gookin wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > > Ted: If you don't call the EC meeting, then I will. If the Chair is
> >> incapable of acting, then the Vice Chair shall do so in its place.
> >> Look it up.
>
> And then Bill commented (as I expected he would):
>
> >First you'd have to prove him *incapable*. So far, I haven't seen that.
>
> You're right. We haven't seen anything in fact from the Chairman.
> Therefore we need a litmus test of capability. I believe responding
> to the e-mail should enough. If he fails to do that, then I may try a
> written letter or FedX. And if he fails to do that, can we be then
> certain that is is "incapable" of calling a meeting? At what point
> does that kick in?

Don't forget phone calls :)

>
> >That aside we need to specify just what the meeting is for. We need to
> >lay out an agenda. There is no point in a having a meeting just to whine
> >and gripe. So far, I haven't seen anyone say *why* they want one, just
> >that they do.
>
> I was under the impression that we are required to meet four times a
> year, though I may be wrong. The last "meeting" was a while back so I
> would assume there would be one now. That's my "assume." I own it.

I don't recall seeing a requirement for four meetings, jas, I'll look...
Nope, it is by action of the committee to determine frequency, etc.

>
> >So, I'll be the first to offer things the EC must deal with.
> >
> >There was a vote made at the last meeting to discuss potential members
> >to the Judicial committee. So far, no discussion has happened.
>
> Agreed. A standing Judicial Committee should be approved.
>
> >There is currently a couple of vacant spots in non-voting constitutional
> >officers: finance chairperson (responsible for fund raising) and
> >Publicity Officer (hey, I didn't make the name up!). These need to be
> >filled.
>
> Agreed. Whole-heartedly!

Ok, so as I mark it, that's two in favor of dealing with these two.

>
> >Now the big one: Membership.
> >Our current membership system is no longer legal. This may change in the
> >future, but for now, it is illegal for the party to solicit memberships
> >at national w/o having a State Federal committee, the details of which
> >are still unclear.
> >
> >
> >It is my considered opinion that we must establish a state-only
> >membership function. National members would still be recognized.
> >However, since we can not "solicit" them, the state option would be the
> >one we published and pushed. I would propose that the $25 fee be split
> >15/10 Region/State.
> >
> >This would provide each region funds to expand w/o state level
> >intervention, or dependencies, and provide the state funds needed to
> >handle state level affairs.
>
> Disagree, but I suppose that's what meetings are for. I'd be
> interested in hearing more of your arguments, especially in what
> other states do either way.

So far, everyone using National's optional plan else seems to be doing
exactly this:"So no what do we do?". I have not yet heard from any
states that are not doing using the National program. National is saying
"We are working on it". They have a committee looking into options,
etc., and as such the LNC has deferred it pending the report of the
committee.

Do you disagree on the split (numbers or in general?), or state
membership?

Basically at this point we can not get new members unless they decide to
do it all on their own. The party can not legally help in any way. IMO,
that is bad. In the next election we should be able to run issue ads,
etc. (providing that doesn't become illegal as well, of course). Without
membership, this is likely not going to happen. There are other things
we need to have funds for, such as literature, etc.. not being able to
grow membership is a nasty kink in the hose.

There is another advantage to a state membership program. Speed. We have
to wait for varying amounts of time before we hear from national about
new members. I've seen ti go from weeks to months. When we get a new
member, we need to get a welcome packet out to them while they are still
thinking and probably a bit excited about joining, not months later when
they think we forgot about them (or never knew).

Handling it ourselves allows us near-instant notification.

In Region II I am implementing a regional welcoming committee for new,
and returning members. This committee is responsible for sending out a
welcoming packet that contains some brochures of the party, a welcome
letter from the regional/county chair(s), and contact information, as
well as opportunities to volunteer, and an events listing. IMO, each
region should do this, and the State Level Membership Director should
serve as a facilitator between the regions. But I digress.

With a state-level system, we can have the regional contacts notified
within 24 hours or so of confirmed payment. This will allow us to be far
more responsive than ever before, something crucial to growing the
party. When people join, and see activity, they are more likely to be
active, and certainly feel better about it.

> Further, I would like to add this point: Seeing how there is
> discussion of removing various officers from the EC, I would be in
> favor of assigning the Judicial Committee the job of investigating
> said officers and submitting a report on the information gathered
> with a recommendation to the EC.

I'd be saying the same thing. But since that is an SCC issue, I'll defer
that to them, with the stipulation that we need to appoint a Judicial
Committee. The way the Ron Perry situation was handled was improper as
well. I'd like to see us not repeat that mistake.

> Also, I would like to see crafted a declaration of State Party
> principles to be presented at the next convention, pending unanimous
> consent.

Hmmm, maybe 7/8ths would do it, I'm trying to envision this party
drafting anything for unanimous consent. We could adopt National's
statement of principles, which I believe we are already committed to.
National has, IIRC, a 7/8ths policy on the SoP.

> >Now, let us do this meeting *right*, by laying out proposals, etc. PRIOR
> >to the meeting, and far enough in advance to actually read through,
> >analyze, discuss, and research them, rather than just tossing them
> >willy-nilly around the meeting, and winding up tabling most for further
> >discussion.
>
> Agreed.

Ok, so the two speaking up are largely in agreement so far ...

>
> >As a result of the amendments at the last convention, the party will
> >incur costs for the meeting if it is done via phone conferencing. We can
> >utilize email to *DISCUSS* proposals, or we can use the forums on the
> >website, where *everyone* with Internet access can see them and
> >participate. The point is to not have a 3-5 hour meeting debating the
> >details of a set of proposals, etc.. Email/Internet forums are a cheaper
> >alternative, and provide clear records as opposed to the human mind. It
> >is, however, as several of the members of the EC have noted, not apropos
> >for a meeting (nor is it legal, the rules state "live communication). We
> >*can* discuss things however.
>
> I favor meeting face-to-face. At one time it was discussed that we
> hold the meeting in several locations: Boise, Pocatello, CDA and
> possibly somewhere mid-state as well. Don't know what happened to
> that notion.

I don't either. I prefer face to face meetings myself. I think the
turmoil shot it down. Given the infrequency with which we need to meed,
face to face should do fine most of the time.

> >This means that we should not rush into having the meetings ASAP, that
> >way we do it the right way. unless we were to have an emergency meeting
> >for the SOLE purpose of handling the membership issue --the only one
> >that is truly pressing for business-- I would suggest we look at a least
> >a couple of weeks, to allow for proposals to circulate and be discussed.
> >This also provides the Regional Reps to solicit and incorporate the
> >input of their constituents.
>
> Agreed again. But the first step is to fix a date. I'm waiting for
> that. Then we can bicker back and forth as we usually do. But if it's
> going to be face-to-face, we need to give people far away time to
> make plans.

OK, so let us start, everyone else can get caught up. :)

[here down is purely IMO]
It should be a weekend, I don't expect people to have to travel in the
middle of the week, etc.. Travel is our own expense, but we knew that
when we signed on to be EC. However, I see no reason we should make it
more expensive than it is.

A downside to face-to-face over the next few months will be the roads.
I've seen the snow you guys up north can get. :) We don't seem to get
much down here anymore, so it is less of a concern to people here which
could lead to not thinking about that regarding you guys up there ("Oh
yeah, snow!").

A couple of weeks lead time puts us at Thanksgiving, probably not a
great time to do it. Then we hit the Christmas season. See above. Then
we are (also) in snow season, with the potential for closed roads, etc.
blocking land travel between North Idaho and the rest of Idaho. I admit
this does not bode well for a face to face meeting in the near future.

At the risk of sounding biased toward Boise, Boise is the least
inconvenient to the most number of members, and as such may serve as the
best first face to face meeting place.

Well, the discussion is now underway ...

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Homeland Security bill
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:10:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 13, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Congress should summon the courage to reject
Bush's homeland security bill, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- If Congress really wants to help protect national
security, it should summon the courage to say "no" to Bush's homeland
security bill, Libertarians say.

"We already have several departments of homeland security, starting
with the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA," said George Getz,
Libertarian Party communications director. "But instead of holding
those agencies accountable for their failures, Bush prefers to create
yet another bumbling bureaucracy. How will this make America safer?"

With Congress reconvened, Bush is pushing the House and Senate for a
vote as early as Wednesday on his proposal for a Cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security, which would combine 170,000 employees
from 22 federal agencies and require a $37 billion budget.

"This proposal is extremely popular on Capitol Hill, because
politicians reflexively enlarge government whenever a crisis occurs,"
Getz said. "But as September's congressional hearings into
intelligence failures showed, bureaucracies posed an obstacle to
preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So creating another bureaucracy
could make America even less secure."

Evidence at the hearings revealed that the CIA knew before the 9/11
attacks that several of the hijackers were al-Qaeda operatives, yet
failed to notify the FBI when they entered the country; that FBI
leadership thwarted a search of the computer of accused hijacker
Zacarias Moussaoui; that intelligence agencies intercepted dozens of
electronic messages from the hijackers but were unable to read them
because they lacked Arabic translators; and other stunning
intelligence
lapses.

Bush should have responded to those revelations by demanding more
accountability, not more bureaucracy, Libertarians say.

"Why haven't the directors of these agencies been fired or disciplined
for the failures that contributed to the deaths of over 3,000 innocent
Americans?" Getz asked. "Why isn't Bush crusading to make those
agencies smaller and more accountable rather than hiding them inside
another impenetrable bureaucracy? And how can the president expect
intelligence agencies to succeed when there's no price to pay for
failure?"

Politicians should simply admit that Bush's bill won't make America
safer and would merely create a $37 billion Department of Bureaucratic
Redundancy, Libertarians say.

"The American people are already spending over $350 billion on a
department of homeland security called the Pentagon, and billions more
on the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies," Getz said. "Instead of
spawning another bureaucracy, politicians should apologize to the
nation for this extravagantly expensive failure and explain why it
won't happen again.

"With the nation at risk of another terrorist attack, it's time to put
national security ahead of job security at U.S. intelligence
agencies."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:29:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

GOA has just released this, and MOM passed it over to me earlier today.
Although the GOP controlled government hasn't taken charge yet, things might
be getting much worse once they do, with the pending approval of the
Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, the Democrats still have a slim
majority control in the Senate, but in the waning days of this 'lame duck'
congress, shit like this may likely continue for a couple of months longer.

Meanwhile, the Shrub Regime<tm> moves us along smartly toward yet another
unwinable war, a 'War with Iraq', and Lord knows who else down the pike!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:00:29 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership
-- Immediate Action Needed

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

November 12, 2002

The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace
Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy of New York.

Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York,
Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the
Senate (S. 2826).

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of
sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI
for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would
include any state record relevant to the question of whether a
person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the
FBI could also require that a state forward ALL of its employment
and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens.
It could require that states forward information concerning drug
diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in
order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any
controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions
of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were
guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might
remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed
in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even
yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer
own a firearm for self-defense.

But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the
states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does
not access all of these records when screening the background of
someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. The
McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of
decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one
slight offense committed in their past.

The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3
million more Americans who have spent time in mental health
facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime
than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those
with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad"
guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns.
Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many
restrictions there are.

This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep
pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more
Americans to legally own guns! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership
for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another
family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for
emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for
depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list?
People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind
altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.?

H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will
only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to
invading the privacy of all Americans.

A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in
England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any
industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun
control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the
wrong hands?

ACTION:

Please contact your Senators and demand that this bill be stopped.
A pre-written message is provided below. To identify your Senators,
as well as to send the message via e-mail, see the Legislative
Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA
website.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that
would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for
self-defense. Those who would be banned present no greater risk of
committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population. Are
all the rest of us next?

Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of
Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Gun
Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of
Congress.

I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive
increase in gun control.

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Full text of Bin Laden statement
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:38:56 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Everyone!

So, we're on the winning side in this 'war on terror' are we? Usually such
announcements are a prelude to another 'terrorist' event. I guess we'll have
to wait and see how this all develops. Meanwhile, not winning in the 'war
against al-Qieda, we are positioning ourselves to open yet another war on
another front, probably equally unwinable. Other prospects for other wars
lie ahead too, perhaps. At least we might be comforted somewhat tonight,
that the British intelligence believes that they are likely to be next on
the hit list for supporting the Shrub Regime's<tm> glorious war efforts.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Full text of Bin Laden statement
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:16:02 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>


> Another translation with minor differences..
> From The Herald Sun,
> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5479796%5E66
> 3,00.html
> -
> Full text of bin Laden statement
>
> 13nov02
>
> FULL text of the statement by Osama bin Laden, broadcast by Qatari
> Al-Jazeera satellite TV.
>
> In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From the slave of
> God, Osama Bin Laden, to the peoples of the countries allied with the
> tyrannical US Government.
> May God's peace be upon those who follow the right path. The road to
> safety begins by ending the aggression.
>
> Reciprocal treatment is part of justice. The incidents that have taken
> place since the raids on New York and Washington up until now - like
> the killing of Germans in Tunisia and the French in Karachi, the
> bombing of the giant French tanker in Yemen, the killing of marines in
> Faylakah (in Kuwait) and the British and Australians in the Bali
> explosions, the recent operation in Moscow (when Chechens took
> theatre-goers hostage) and some sporadic operations here and there -
> are only reactions and reciprocal actions.
>
> These actions were carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defence
> of their religion and in response to the order of their God and
> prophet, may God's peace and blessings be upon him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What (US President George) Bush, the pharaoh of this age, was doing in
> terms of killing our sons in Iraq, and what Israel, the United States'
> ally, was doing in terms of bombing houses that shelter old people,
> women and children with US-made aircraft in Palestine were sufficient
> to prompt the sane among your rulers to distance themselves from this
> criminal gang.
>
> Defending Palestine
>
> Our kinfolk in Palestine have been slain and severely tortured for
> nearly a century.
>
> If we defend our people in Palestine, the world becomes agitated and
> allies itself against Muslims, unjustly and falsely, under the
> pretence of fighting terrorism.
>
> What do your governments want by allying themselves with the criminal
> gang in the White House against Muslims?
>
> Do your governments not know that the White House gangsters are the
> biggest butchers of this age?
>
> (US Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld, the butcher of Vietnam, killed
> more than two million people, not to mention those he wounded.
>
> (US Vice-President Dick) Cheney and (US Secretary of State Colin)
> Powell killed and destroyed in Baghdad more than Hulegu of the
> Mongols.
>
> What do your governments want from their alliance with America in
> attacking us in Afghanistan?
>
> I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and
> Australia.
>
> Wake-up call
>
> We warned Australia before not to join in (the war) in Afghanistan,
> and (against) its despicable effort to separate East Timor.
>
> It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in
> Bali.
>
> Its government falsely claimed that they (the Australians) were not
> targeted.
>
> If you were distressed by the deaths of your men and the men of your
> allies in Tunisia, Karachi, Faylakah, Bali and Amman, remember our
> children who are killed in Palestine and Iraq everyday, remember our
> deaths in Khowst mosques and remember the premeditated killing of our
> people in weddings in Afghanistan.
>
> If you were distressed by the killing of your nationals in Moscow,
> remember ours in Chechnya.
>
> Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and
> widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and
> happiness be your lot?
>
> This is unfair. It is time that we get even. You will be killed just
> as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb.
>
> And expect more that will further distress you.
>
> The Islamic nation, thanks to God, has started to attack you at the
> hands of its beloved sons, who pledged to God to continue jihad, as
> long as they are alive, through words and weapons to establish right
> and expose falsehood.
>
> In conclusion, I ask God to help us champion His religion and continue
> jihad for His sake until we meet Him while He is satisfied with us.
>
> And He can do so. Praise be to Almighty God.
>

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: What the last election may mean for the LP.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:16:33 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

With all the fulmination about how bad Bush is (or will be, or is expected
to be), I still have to say that I think this latest election may be the
turning point for libertarians. "How's that" You ask? Well, here's a
possible scenario for the future. Obviously, anything could happen that
would change it overnight. But see how this looks...

First, I think we're going to seeing the beginning of a Democrat flameout
that is going to keep going. "Moderate" or "Conservative" Democrats will
try to slow their party's "lurch to the left" (how many times have you seen
that phrase in the mainstream media?) but will probably be giving up
shortly before or after the 2004 elections.

They will probably manage to keep getting some union, trial lawyer,
"environmentalist" and Hollywood money, and they will probably get a few
bucks from some corporations wanting protection from the free market. But
the protection racket is probably over. The money that Democrats got in
this election cycle will probably be about what they manage to get in the
next one.

Not only that, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for the press to
cover up the corruption, the incompetence, the politicking, the lack of
principle (or at least lack of any principles they are willing to share
with the American people), the lack of ideas that work, and the lack of
respect for American traditions and people, for the law and the
Constitution. So they are going to find themselves increasingly unable to
win--regardless of the amount of money they manage to spend.

It's still too early to write the obituary, but the patient is sick and
shows no signs of anything but getting worse as time goes on.

So. As people lose faith in the Democrat party, where are the
disillusioned people to turn? There are plenty of "Civil Libertarian"
Democrats that are deeply suspicious of the civil liberties record of the
Republican party. I suspect that many of these people are waking up to the
"PC" records of Democrats and finding themselves disgusted with what the
Democrats have become but remain suspicious of Republicans. If
Libertarians can persuade these people that we *are*, for civil liberties,
what the Democrats once *were*, and if we can persuade these people that
free markets also work better than government-run markets, we may be able
to gain some significant numbers of votes.

Conversely, as the Republican party moves (in at least some cases) toward
the "center", they may leave free-marketeers behind. Some of them will be
natural libertarians and some will need to be convinced that personal
freedom and civil liberties actually help provide the safety, security, and
well-being that they want.

You're probably saying, "Wait a minute! How are we going to manage to
persuade these people now if we haven't been able to do so in the
past?" Well, because in the past they weren't disillusioned and looking
for a new political "home." To the "Civil Libertarian" Democrat, the
choice between the LP and the always-feared Republican party could easily
fall to the LP. Likewise, the free-marketeer who becomes disillusioned
with the Republican party. Why would she join a party of Socialists?

Obviously, anything could change for any reason. But the Libertarian party
probably will have an opportunity over the next few years to grab a large
slice of the electorate. In 2008, it's even possible that Libertarians
could be running neck-and-neck with Democrats, usually chasing
Republicans. If that happens, the Democrat party may fade with its
remaining pieces spinning off to the Greens, Socialists, Republicans and
perhaps some other new party. The Republicans will find themselves moving
further left and spinning off more of their free-marketeer "right". At
that point, (perhaps even as early as 2012 or 2016) we could find the
Republican and Libertarian parties about where the Democrat and Republican
parties (respectively) were in the 1960s (ideologically and in terms of
power). Perhaps at that point, the Libertarian party would be more
"principled" than the Republican party was...I don't know.

For a somewhat alternative view, see Lowell Ponte's piece. I agree to some
extent with his "centrifugal" theory of politics. But I also think that he
ignores the possibility of a new party arising--at least partially from the
ashes of an old one (think of the Republican party rising from the ashes of
the Whig, Know-nothing, and Anti-Slavery parties, and probably from some
Democrat party cast-offs):

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4619

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: EC Meeting
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:30:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com, Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>, Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>, Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
Michelle Eilers <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, michael@Gabrielcomm.net,
Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, libnw@immosys.com,
Larry Fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, jlo@nichebuilders.com,
James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>,
Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>, David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>, birvin@allidaho.com,
Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>, Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

Hi Bill,

> So, I'll be the first to offer things the EC must
> deal with.
>
> There was a vote made at the last meeting to discuss
> potential members
> to the Judicial committee. So far, no discussion has
> happened.

I definitely agree that we need to create this
committee. How many members does the committee need?
Is there a description in the Constitution about
exactly what the Judicial committee is supposed to do?

I imagine we should all be thinking about possible
nominees to the committee.

> There is currently a couple of vacant spots in
> non-voting constitutional
> officers: finance chairperson (responsible for fund
> raising) and
> Publicity Officer (hey, I didn't make the name up!).
> These need to be
> filled.

I definitely agree about the Publicity Officer;
filling that position should hopefully forestall any
more conflict over press releases. The Finance
Chairperson would also probably be good to have.

You mentioned wanting to discuss as much as possible
about proposals over e-mail, Bill - which sounds like
a good idea to me. Should people who have nominees
for either of these positions or for the Judicial
committee come up with a brief statement about why
they think so-and-so would be good for the job?

> Now the big one: Membership.
> Our current membership system is no longer legal.
> This may change in the
> future, but for now, it is illegal for the party to
> solicit memberships
> at national w/o having a State Federal committee,
> the details of which
> are still unclear.
>
> It is my considered opinion that we must establish a
> state-only
> membership function. National members would still be
> recognized.
> However, since we can not "solicit" them, the state
> option would be the
> one we published and pushed. I would propose that
> the $25 fee be split
> 15/10 Region/State.
>
> This would provide each region funds to expand w/o
> state level
> intervention, or dependencies, and provide the state
> funds needed to
> handle state level affairs.

A state membership plan sounds good to me if you can
work out the details for it. The 15/10 split sounds
fine too.

The only other thing I've thought of that we need to
discuss - and we may not even need a meeting for this
- is to decide how "little decisions" can be made.
How to pay for bills is a big one. I appreciate David
going to the effort to get EC approval before writing
particular checks; however, we need to have some
system of approval decided on so he doesn't have to
wait months before getting responses from board
members about whether the expenditure is approved.
Maybe a "complain within three days or forever hold
your peace" sort of thing. ;) The discussion about
the IDLP phone also went far from smoothly. It just
seems like we ought to decide on some system for
making these small decisions, so that they can be
resolved even if some board members won't respond.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:31:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 14, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians ridicule New York City proposal
for government-mandated "cell phone etiquette"

WASHINGTON, DC -- New York City politicians are considering the
nation's first proposal to outlaw cell phone calls during movies,
concerts and Broadway plays - but Libertarians say social pressure
would be a better way to deter such rude behavior.

"Picture Miss Manners with a gun, and you have some idea why
this proposal is an overreaction," said George Getz, Libertarian
Party communications director. "Civilized people can deal with
minor annoyances without further empowering the Nanny State."

This month the New York City Council is expected to consider a
bill that would impose a $50 fine on anyone who makes or receives
a call, or fails to turn off the phone's ringer, during an indoor
performance at a theater, art gallery, concert hall or library.

If passed in New York, the "cell phone etiquette" law could
spread rapidly to other states, industry observers predict. Last
year, after New York became the first state to ban using a cell
phone while driving, 31 other state legislatures considered
similar regulations.

But the real question raised by the New York proposal,
Libertarians say, is: "Should bad manners be illegal?"

"There are plenty of other ways to deter someone who's gabbing
on a cell phone during a movie, starting with giving them a dirty
look, tapping them on the shoulder and asking them to stop, or
even asking the manager to do so," Getz said. "When it comes to
making people behave, social disapproval works much more
efficiently than writing another law."

Besides, enforcing such a measure could pose more problems than
the "crime" itself, Libertarians say.

"Imagine every movie theater equipped with cell phone cops who
bolt down the aisle every time a ringer goes off, demand a
drivers license from the offender, and issue a ticket," Getz said.

"With an army of phone fighters disturbing the peace, patrons
will soon long for the days when an occasional cell phone ring
was their greatest annoyance.

"Besides, if politicians are going to target people who talk on a
cell phone during a movie or play, what about obnoxious people
who talk aloud and aren't using a cell phone? Or people who butt
in line to buy tickets; take too long to decide what kind of
popcorn to buy; or teen-agers who smooch in the back row of the
theater?

"Once you put politicians in charge of defining rude behavior,
expect the list of annoying behaviors to grow."

That's why the best way to ensure cell-phone etiquette is to put
private individuals and businesses in charge, Libertarians say.

"Many private businesses already prohibit customers from eating,
drinking, using foul language and other rude behaviors, so they
can simply add using a cell phone to the list if they desire,"
he said.

"In fact, simply encouraging every business to implement its own
policy might solve the problem instantly. People who find cell
phones annoying could patronize cell-phone free theaters, stores,
and restaurants. Meanwhile, people who insist on yakking loudly
on their phones would get exactly what they deserve: the company
of other people just as obnoxious as they are.

"There's no reason to hire more cops to impose cell phone
etiquette. Let's urge New Yorkers to disconnect this ridiculous
proposal before it spreads to other states."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:55:01 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Press release says

> "There are plenty of other ways to deter someone who's gabbing
> on a cell phone during a movie, starting with giving them a dirty
> look, tapping them on the shoulder and asking them to stop, or
> even asking the manager to do so," Getz said. "When it comes to
> making people behave, social disapproval works much more
> efficiently than writing another law."

On the contrary, there is a lot of social disapproval for spam
yet it continues to arrive.

This seems like wishful-thinking libertarianism.

Sometimes laws are good things for making a better world.

We have fines for traffic violations. Why not fines
for cinema violations?

Regards
Tim

Tequila Sunrise
Nick Frescia: This is my backyard, Hal. I don't grow weeds
in my backyard so I can pull them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:17:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Tim,

> > "There are plenty of other ways to deter someone
> who's gabbing
> > on a cell phone during a movie, starting with
> giving them a dirty
> > look, tapping them on the shoulder and asking them
> to stop, or
> > even asking the manager to do so," Getz said.
> "When it comes to
> > making people behave, social disapproval works
> much more
> > efficiently than writing another law."
>
> On the contrary, there is a lot of social
> disapproval for spam
> yet it continues to arrive.

The point is not whether social disapproval can
*completely* get rid of some annoying behavior, but
whether social disapproval - or some other
non-coercive - is more effective at ending said
behavior than passing a law.

If we want to cut down on spam, would it be more
effective to have the government pass a law fining
people for sending spam or to use various of the
private methods now in place - like employing e-mail
filters.

> This seems like wishful-thinking libertarianism.
>
> Sometimes laws are good things for making a better
> world.
>
> We have fines for traffic violations. Why not fines
> for cinema violations?

One basic difference is that roads are owned by the
government and so it is reasonable for the government
to fine people who fail to abide by the government's
rules. But the government - at least for the time
being - doesn't own every cinema in the country. The
government has no moral right to tell cinema owners
how to run their private property.

And how is this law going to be enforced? Is the
government going to start stationing police officers
in cinemas so they can fine people who break the law?
I would really much prefer to have the police out
dealing with robbers, murderers, rapists, and other
such *criminals* than to be sitting in a cinema,
watching free movies and every so often causing a
scene by fining someone who breaks the cell phone law.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 16 Nov 2002 13:53:15 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 06:55, Tim Bedding wrote:
> Press release says
>
> > "There are plenty of other ways to deter someone who's gabbing
> > on a cell phone during a movie, starting with giving them a dirty
> > look, tapping them on the shoulder and asking them to stop, or
> > even asking the manager to do so," Getz said. "When it comes to
> > making people behave, social disapproval works much more
> > efficiently than writing another law."
>
> On the contrary, there is a lot of social disapproval for spam
> yet it continues to arrive.
>
> This seems like wishful-thinking libertarianism.

No, you mistake two entirely different phenomena.
Spam is all but anonymous to 99% of the end users, and costs nothing to
the spammer. With hundreds of free throw-away email account sites, the
cost of sending the spam-mail is only time, and that is reduced by
automated systems.

Further, the spammer is isolated from the victims in that they have no
direct recourse. A telemarketer is on the phone, spending money, and can
be directly verbally accosted by the recipient of the phone-spam.
Believe me, I've been there. This carries the effect of social
disapproval to the person doing it. In the email-spam world, there is no
such avenue. The best you can do is report the spammer (and the site
they are spamming for) to their ISP, or an agency that does this (such
as spamcop.net ) for review and account termination.

Spam continues because there is no cost to the spammer.

Here is an anecdote fresh from last night that shows how social
disapproval can be an effective form of discouragement.

Last night I, my family, and some friends attended the harry Potter
movie. Many people were waiting through the credits to see if there was
a suprise after them (many movies have done this). Well, there was.
During this scene the theater employees were walking and talking around
the theatre. Several people called out to them to shut up. It worked. If
that were to continue, they would eventually learn to not do that. No
law required.

> Sometimes laws are good things for making a better world.

Legislating morality, as this is, does not lead to a better world, in
fact I postulate it leads to a worse world. Rather than people turning
off the ringer out of an understanding of the inconvenience and
annoyance of it, they do it "to avoid punishment". This leads to a
society of "just do what the law says. Why? I dunno it's the law". This
in turn leads to a lack of respect for the law, and thus an increase in
the number of crimes committed.

"It is the law" is the same as "because I say so" it has zero
educational value, and as such leads to less of an understanding.

> We have fines for traffic violations. Why not fines
> for cinema violations?

Why not fines for making a face at someone, or hurting their feelings by
telling them they are wrong (i.e. that 2+2 is not 18)? Why not fines for
wearing red on blue clothes, or writing a web page in yellow text on a
bright green background, or by using HTML in their email ... or anything
else someone finds annoying or an inconvenience?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:59:51 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill Anderson

> The best you can do is report the spammer (and the site
> they are spamming for) to their ISP, or an agency that does this
> (such as spamcop.net ) for review and account termination.

And the ISP does not always take action. There are rogue ISPs.

This is a classic example of social disapproval not working.

And yet the press release says
> > even asking the manager to do so," Getz said. "When it comes to
> > making people behave, social disapproval works much more
> > efficiently than writing another law."

See my Kosh quote below too.

> Legislating morality, as this is, does not lead to a better world,
> in fact I postulate it leads to a worse world. Rather than people
> turning

Sometimes legislating morality is the only sensible option.

We do not allow social disapproval to tackle the issue
of murder in its own good time.

Why? Because the cost would be too great and success
is far from certain. The same applies to the problem
of spam.

I receive more than 10 spams a day at the moment. Social
disapproval is not working.

You stood for office. If you are de-facto pro-spam, then
you would not get my vote.

> "It is the law" is the same as "because I say so" it has zero
> educational value, and as such leads to less of an understanding.

The goal of the new law is not education. The goal is behaviour
change.

I do not want to avoid maintaining laws against homicide
just because they have little educational value.

I do not care if people do not immediately understand why
they cannot spam. If they really want to find out, then they
can ask friends or their ISP.

Similarly cinemas can respond to enquiries with "We are
invoking the fines option because the number of mobile
phones going off in the middle of movies was becoming
extremely aggravating to our clients".

> Why not fines for wearing red on blue clothes,

I assume the problem of ringers going off is becoming
an intolerably frequent one in cinemas. If not, I would
see insufficient reason for a law.

Why should a cinema-goer be forced to pay in terms of
having ringers going off all the time during a movie
simply because you support the fashion of having only
educational laws?

Why not give the people who run the cinemas the option
to exclude or fine?

I am not saying that the option should be always be
taken up. That decision can be left to the market.

If the people who run the cinema see advantages to
adopting the option, then they can do so.

By ruling out a law simply because it is non-educational,
you are deciding to limit choice in the market place.

Regards
Tim

Deathwalker
Kosh: A stroke of the brush does not guarantee
art from the bristles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:03:06 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill Anderson

> No, that is a case of lack of disapproval. If an ISP decides to
> tolerate SPAM, that is their choice. Spam is a global scale field.
> And, as I

Exactly. Rogue ISPs have a choice. They choose not
to take measures against their spamming customers.

Rogue ISPs do receive complaints. They just do not
act on them.

> Further, murder is a property and rights violation. A cell phone
> ringing is not. Nor is talking on it in a theater.

So, the conclusion is that legislating morality can lead
to a better world for a property and rights violation.

> Now you are into word games. "Pro-Spam" is not the same thing as
> saying the government has no authority or right to decide what is
> or is not
> spam, and make laws punishing those who do it.

No, I am not into word games. I deliberately said
"de facto" pro-spam. That does not mean that you would
identify yourself as pro-spam.

It merely talks about the effect rather than the intention.

If something is unclear, please ask further questions.

> I run not for the sole purpose of acquiring votes. Such "voters" are
> not voting for or
> against me, but on a personal agenda.

You say personal agenda. Of course, I have a personal agenda.
My agenda is to vote on the issues.

Is that surprising to you?

> Ah, the use of force to change people's behavior, regardless of the
> goodness of the intention.

So, murder is okay as long as people intend well. Bring back
the Spanish Inquisition then. That had good intentions.

Remember the final solution? That had the good intention
to rid the Earth of a terrible burden.

To almost quote Babylon 5 (No Compromises), the road to hell is
paved with good intentions.

> If this were purely a *Private* thing, you would be right. However,
> it is not. If it is a violation of law, the Police are required to
> enforce it, not cinemas.

> That is what we are saying; do not mandate it, let them do it on
> their own *if they choose*.

You make a good point here. Thinking again, I would want
New York City council to merely take whatever actions are
necessary to enable cinemas to take effective action
against such nuisances.

That might involve passing or altering laws to make fines legal
for those who run cinemas.

So, it turns out we might be pretty close to agreement
on this issue after all.

I still think that the press release could have been
worded differently.

The alternative, for me, is not social disapproval.
The alternative is examining the legal options of
cinemas and adding more if really needed.

>> Kosh: A stroke of the brush does not guarantee
>> art from the bristles.

> A stroke of the pen for a law does not change behavior that is not
> easily changed. Your quote applies equally to laws.

Indeed it does. Just because words can be written, it does
not mean that they constitute a good law.

Regards
Tim

Ben-Hur
Messala: Sextus, you ask how to fight an idea and I'll
tell you how. With another idea!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:58:19 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

This reminds me of about 20 years ago when the issue of smoking on city
buses came up. Someone proposed that there could be alternate smoking
and non-smoking buses. Someone else's comeback, pointing out the
limitations of such an approach, was, then how about urinating and
non-urinating buses? Or murder and non-murder buses? "I'm sorry,
didn't you know? This is the bus where the passengers are allowed to
urinate on each other. The next bus is the one where the passengers are
allowed to kill each other."

There are certain behaviors that are customary, and it just should be
presumed that those customs will be the norm everywhere. If someone in
control of certain premises wants to make an exception, the requirement
of notice needs to be taken seriously.

What if custom is unclear or changing? Then there may be justification
for legislation to clarify the situation.

For instance, what of the person who buys a ticket, enters the theater,
and then during the performance is bothered by cell phones ringing? Is
that person entitled to a refund or not? Or, what about the person who
buys a ticket, enters the theater, and then learns that cell phones must
be turned off and wishes to keep hirs on? Is that person entitled to a
refund? Does the absence of notice mean cell phones can be used, or
not? An ordinance can set the default condition and a requirement of
sufficient and timely notice to reverse it.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 19 Nov 2002 17:44:26 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I originally sent this to Tim privately, on accident.

On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 06:03, Tim Bedding wrote:
> Bill Anderson
>
> > No, that is a case of lack of disapproval. If an ISP decides to
> > tolerate SPAM, that is their choice. Spam is a global scale field.
> > And, as I
>
> Exactly. Rogue ISPs have a choice. They choose not
> to take measures against their spamming customers.
>
> Rogue ISPs do receive complaints. They just do not
> act on them.

So the spammer sees no social disapproval.

> > Further, murder is a property and rights violation. A cell phone
> > ringing is not. Nor is talking on it in a theater.
>
> So, the conclusion is that legislating morality can lead
> to a better world for a property and rights violation.

No, that is not a conclusion, that is a presumption on your part. My
point was that there is a real difference between rights violations and
mere annoyances. With the primary function of government to protect the
rights of it's citizenry, there is an obligation on one side, while not
on the other.

> > Now you are into word games. "Pro-Spam" is not the same thing as
> > saying the government has no authority or right to decide what is
> > or is not
> > spam, and make laws punishing those who do it.
>
> No, I am not into word games. I deliberately said
> "de facto" pro-spam. That does not mean that you would
> identify yourself as pro-spam.
>
> It merely talks about the effect rather than the intention.

Yet you have not proven the effect. There are laws making many things
illegal, yet it does not stop the action. You have mode no case that
what I have said results in a de facto stance in support of spam.

>
> If something is unclear, please ask further questions.

Actually, the lack of clarity wasin my posting. I did not mean to say
you were playing the games, merely in that territory. I am sorry for the
confusion.

> > I run not for the sole purpose of acquiring votes. Such "voters" are
> > not voting for or
> > against me, but on a personal agenda.
>
> You say personal agenda. Of course, I have a personal agenda.
> My agenda is to vote on the issues.

No, you proposed a stance where you would vote on a singular issue,
ignoring all others. That is not voting on the issues.

> Is that surprising to you?

Not really, one-issue voters are quite common. It is the person that
takes into account multiple issues that is all too rare. Though they are
in the rise.

> > Ah, the use of force to change people's behavior, regardless of the
> > goodness of the intention.
>
> So, murder is okay as long as people intend well. Bring back
> the Spanish Inquisition then. That had good intentions.

Red Herring, Tim. Murder is not a behavior. It is an act that is most
often committed once in a lifetime. Contrary to what the media *MAY*
report over on your side of the pond, Americans do not as a rule or
behavior just go around murdering people.

People generally accept murder as being wrong. It is an innate feeling
for most people. MOST murder cases are a result of extreme
circumstances, or prolonged exposure to them.

Besides, the "goodness of intention" was to be applied to the changing
of the behavior, using force, as opposed to persuasion. To propose that
is bordering on justifying the means with the end.

In the case of murder, one does not have the right to commit it. My
rights to swing my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
However, my cell phone is my property. The theater is the property of
someone else, a non-governmental entity. In order to make a ban, or levy
fines, etc. the government must violate my right to use my phone (i.e.
leave it on in case my babysitter needs to get a hold of me), and the
right of the property owner to use his as he/she sees fit.

So in order to do what you propose, the government would have to violate
two entities' property rights. Two wrongs do not correct (or make) a
right.

We haven't even gone into such situations as my above parenthetical. By
making it a crime (even levying fines), you violate much more in this
case. Parents that have very young children have a valid reason for
leaving their phone on: emergencies. For that matter, so do doctors,
other medical personnel, police, investigators, and business owners.

To account for that, the council would have to make all sorts of
loopholes, thus destroying equality under the law. I cinema could just
make it a policy note. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

>
> Remember the final solution? That had the good intention
> to rid the Earth of a terrible burden.
> To almost quote Babylon 5 (No Compromises), the road to hell is
> paved with good intentions.
>

You do realize this applies to all laws, yes? Laws such as the cell
phone ban are "good intentions" that have consequences opposite to their
intention. The "intention" is to reduce interruptions people *may* have
while watching a movie. The effects outweigh the costs, thus making it a
net bad law. Any law to be enforced costs money. More often than not,
laws such as the ban in question create more cost than the fines can
support. That is just one example.

> > If this were purely a *Private* thing, you would be right. However,
> > it is not. If it is a violation of law, the Police are required to
> > enforce it, not cinemas.
>
> > That is what we are saying; do not mandate it, let them do it on
> > their own *if they choose*.
>
> You make a good point here. Thinking again, I would want
> New York City council to merely take whatever actions are
> necessary to enable cinemas to take effective action
> against such nuisances.
>
> That might involve passing or altering laws to make fines legal
> for those who run cinemas.
>
> So, it turns out we might be pretty close to agreement
> on this issue after all.

Close, yes. I think we can get closer. :^)

There is _nothing_ the NYC Council needs to do to "allow" cinema
operators to charge 'fines", or even a surcharge if your phone is taken
into the theater. They currently have that ability.

If you rent my property (say oh ... a DVD) under the agreement that if
you do not return it when agreed, you owe me more money, and you return
it late, I now have a case against you. No law required. In fact, this
is done at nearly every rental store in the US. No law required. Thus,
inaction serves best.

In fact, in order for the cinemas to levy a government fine, they would
have to be owned by the government. Private organizations (Rightly!) do
not have the authority to levy government fines. Maybe it is different
over there, I can not say.

> I still think that the press release could have been
> worded differently.
>
> The alternative, for me, is not social disapproval.

But it is, according to your above statements. If cinemas decide to put
a surcharge, or levy additional fees for such instances, that is a
demonstration of social disapproval. If society doesn't care, then the
theater operations that do not use these policies do not see a reduction
in business, and the policy goes away. This would indicate a lack of
social disapproval. If the theaters that did not use such policies saw
an increase in business, while non-implementers saw a concomitant
decrease, we see social disapproval expressed, and the problem is
resolved.

> The alternative is examining the legal options of
> cinemas and adding more if really needed.

But how do you determine how much is "needed"? Who decides? What are the
criteria?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 19 Nov 2002 17:57:50 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:58, Robert Goodman wrote:
> This reminds me of about 20 years ago when the issue of smoking on city
> buses came up. Someone proposed that there could be alternate smoking
> and non-smoking buses. Someone else's comeback, pointing out the
> limitations of such an approach, was, then how about urinating and
> non-urinating buses? Or murder and non-murder buses? "I'm sorry,
> didn't you know? This is the bus where the passengers are allowed to
> urinate on each other. The next bus is the one where the passengers are
> allowed to kill each other."
>
> There are certain behaviors that are customary, and it just should be
> presumed that those customs will be the norm everywhere. If someone in
> control of certain premises wants to make an exception, the requirement
> of notice needs to be taken seriously.

Yes, notice must be put up. If I were to put a 7 point font sign at the
bottom of my door that by entering the premises, you agree to pay me 1oo
dollars, no court would uphold my claim.

> What if custom is unclear or changing? Then there may be justification
> for legislation to clarify the situation.
>
> For instance, what of the person who buys a ticket, enters the theater,
> and then during the performance is bothered by cell phones ringing? Is

Depends on the policy of the theater. Mostly. I imagine the MPAA would
find a way to strongarm that refund option away.

> that person entitled to a refund or not? Or, what about the person who
> buys a ticket, enters the theater, and then learns that cell phones must
> be turned off and wishes to keep hirs on? Is that person entitled to a
> refund? Does the absence of notice mean cell phones can be used, or
> not? An ordinance can set the default condition and a requirement of
> sufficient and timely notice to reverse it.

How does one determine what custom should be enshrined into law? If you
say the majority or collective agreement, then there is no need for the
ordinance, is there? If the collective opinion is "it isn't enough of a
concern", then why bother with more regulations to worry about?

Theaters put of no smoking signs, hospitals put up no cell phone signs.
If a patron doesn't see the no smoking sign and lights up they are
likely either expelled or told to put it out. it depends on the policy
of the establishment.

The mechanism and policies are already in existence, they just need to
be applied, if there is an issue.

Think about it. IF the ringing cell phone was such a problem, people
would go elsewhere. Yes, there are options. For example, there is DVD,
VHS, Pay-Per-View, etc.. If this happens, the theaters will be the
*first* to note the problem, and will take actions to account for it,
such as no cell phone policies. Or maybe they will lower their prices,
and people would be willing to come back. They would probably conduct
some market research to see why their business is declining.

We've been through this before. Pagers. There was a big hullabalu about
pagers going off in theaters when they first become popular. Calls for
banning them were made, shut down, and where is there a problem? pagers
in theaters are not an issue. This is most likely a feel-good thing.
"Look, I'm doing something!" for a legislator. Nonetheless, it still
needs countered whenever it arises.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:43:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> This reminds me of about 20 years ago when the issue
> of smoking on city
> buses came up. Someone proposed that there could be
> alternate smoking
> and non-smoking buses. Someone else's comeback,
> pointing out the
> limitations of such an approach, was, then how about
> urinating and
> non-urinating buses? Or murder and non-murder
> buses? "I'm sorry,
> didn't you know? This is the bus where the
> passengers are allowed to
> urinate on each other. The next bus is the one
> where the passengers are
> allowed to kill each other."

Just because options are conceivable doesn't mean that
there's any reason for the market to provide them.
How many people *want* to ride a bus where people are
urinating all the time all over everything? In fact,
how many people want to routinely be able to urinate
on a bus themselves? There may be a handful of people
like that out there, but certainly not enough to make
it economically viable for buses to allow those people
to urinate freely on the bus or on other passengers.

In contrast, there are many people who would like to
be able to smoke on a bus and there are many people
who do not want smoking on buses. There are enough
people in both camps that it could conceivably be
economically viable for there to be both smoking and
non-smoking buses.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:29:15 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle wrote to Robert Goodman...

> Just because options are conceivable doesn't mean that
> there's any reason for the market to provide them.
> How many people *want* to ride a bus where people are
> urinating all the time all over everything? In fact,
> how many people want to routinely be able to urinate
> on a bus themselves? There may be a handful of people
> like that out there, but certainly not enough to make
> it economically viable for buses to allow those people
> to urinate freely on the bus or on other passengers.

At issue here, in my judgement anyway, is whether laws are the best
vehicle to approach what both companies desire (happy repeat customers
and commensurate income) and customers demand. The company is in
business to make money. Presumably, if the majority of passengers
wanted toilets installed in buses (as in inter-state and intra-state
Greyhound buses for example), the company would install them anyway,
perhaps charging extra for tickets, at least on some of their buses
and give customers a choice or non-toilets or toilets. This is the
free market approach. Urinating on other passengers, or inside the
buses on walls or seats, is something that neither the customers or
the company would put up with.

> In contrast, there are many people who would like to
> be able to smoke on a bus and there are many people
> who do not want smoking on buses. There are enough
> people in both camps that it could conceivably be
> economically viable for there to be both smoking and
> non-smoking buses.

I would certainly welcome the option of "smoking buses" if such were
legally available, as well as "smoking airplanes" (no pun intended to
9/11), restaurants and a lot of other choices which aren't now legally
available in many areas. Some states, like California, have gone so
far as to ban smoking in all public places, including restaurants and
bars! Prior to that, most restaurants of any standing, provided for
smoking and non-smoking sections, where all customers could simply
come in and enjoy themselves without infringing upon others.

Some of this legislation is driven not be inconvenience by
non-smokers, but an "anti-smoking" special interest lobby that is
determined to punish people because they choose to smoke, even though
smokers who choose to smoke aren't really infringing upon them at all.
It's a moral issue for them, and their 'war against smoking by anyone'
is what most of this legislation is all about.

For most libertarians, I believe we must find that this is simply
unacceptable use of force, that being codified law, enforcing edicts
on non-aggressive behaviour and choices. Since all laws imply the
force required to defend them, anyone choosing to open a bar or
restaurant, clearly open to smokers and posted as such, and customers
choosing to frequent such an establishment now become criminals when
both owner and customer had made such choices to participate in such a
contractual relationship.

Most, if not all, of the social laws on the books today, fit into
pretty much such a category sadly. It creates a whole body of new
criminals when there is not victims! Which is why we have all of this
clamour for building all these new jails and prisons.

Thanks Michelle!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:38:25 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote Timothy Bedding...

> If you rent my property (say oh ... a DVD) under the agreement that if
> you do not return it when agreed, you owe me more money, and you return
> it late, I now have a case against you. No law required. In fact, this
> is done at nearly every rental store in the US. No law required. Thus,
> inaction serves best.

You made an excellent point here, and this forms the contractual basis
for all rental establishments that I have ever dealt with anyway.
There are several "do it yourself" rental companies that rent power
equipment, portable cement mixers, water pumps, and a host of other
equipment to people wish to do home and property repair and such
activities. Usually such rental implies that the customer is
responsible for the proper use of the equipment, and if it is abused,
then the customer may be liable for the damages. Also, is such
equipment is rented for say, a 4-hour period, if the customer brings
it back the next day, he is accessed additional costs for the excess
time.

Would it be proper and even realistic for the government to pass laws
assessing fines against those abuse private equipment rented in such
an establishment, or fines in failure to bring such equipment back on
time for the time purchased? Of course not. Why would anyone suggest
that we use the police, court system, and even jails to punish people
who have broken a private contractual agreement. Yes, if the owner
could not redeem for the damage, or loss in time, he could bring civil
damages for restitution, but that's a different matter than involving
the criminal justice system itself for policing such matters in terms
of criminal law.

You did good Bill. At least I thought so.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:09:21 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill

> We've been through this before. Pagers. There was a big hullabalu
> about pagers going off in theaters when they first become popular.
> Calls for
> banning them were made, shut down, and where is there a problem?
> Pagers in theaters are not an issue. This is most likely a feel-good
> thing.
> "Look, I'm doing something!" for a legislator. Nonetheless, it
> still needs countering whenever it arises.

Pagers may not be a problem but spam definitely is.

I get upwards of 10 a day.

Contrary to what some say, banning spam is not a first
amendment violation. My mailbox is not a public
free-speech forum and should not be treated as such.

Regards
Tim

War Zone
Max Eilerson: It's also possible that the wrong
people could hear you

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 20 Nov 2002 09:23:29 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 00:43, Michelle wrote:
> --- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > This reminds me of about 20 years ago when the issue
> > of smoking on city
> > buses came up. Someone proposed that there could be
> > alternate smoking
> > and non-smoking buses. Someone else's comeback,
> > pointing out the
> > limitations of such an approach, was, then how about
> > urinating and
> > non-urinating buses?

Actually, there are urinating and non-urinating busses. Some busses have
a restroom in the back. ;)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:24:15 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> asked:

> How does one determine what custom should be enshrined into law?

Might as well toss a coin or something. Remember, it's just to set the
default, and establish criteria for notice to overcome the default.

> If you
> say the majority or collective agreement, then there is no need for
the
> ordinance, is there? If the collective opinion is "it isn't enough of
a
> concern", then why bother with more regulations to worry about?

But I wrote about situations such as this, where society is at least
temporarily on the fence, roughly midway between those positions.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 21 Nov 2002 16:16:18 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: LibertyNW <libnw@immosys.com>

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 11:24, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> asked:
>
> > How does one determine what custom should be enshrined into law?
>
> Might as well toss a coin or something. Remember, it's just to set the
> default, and establish criteria for notice to overcome the default.

Why establish/impose the "default" in the first place? This takes it out
of the hands of people.

>
> > If you
> > say the majority or collective agreement, then there is no need for
> the
> > ordinance, is there? If the collective opinion is "it isn't enough of
> a
> > concern", then why bother with more regulations to worry about?
>
> But I wrote about situations such as this, where society is at least
> temporarily on the fence, roughly midway between those positions.

You missed the question. If the collective opinion is "we don't have
one", or "none worth hassling over", there is no worth to forced action.

If you impose a policy, you impose a decision. It is far easier to
create a new law (which an ordinance is, let us not forget that), than
to remove an existing one.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: 21 Nov 2002 16:32:31 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: LibertyNW <libnw@immosys.com>

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 04:38, Frank Reichert wrote:
...
> Would it be proper and even realistic for the government to pass laws
> assessing fines against those abuse private equipment rented in such
> an establishment, or fines in failure to bring such equipment back on
> time for the time purchased? Of course not. Why would anyone suggest
> that we use the police, court system, and even jails to punish people
> who have broken a private contractual agreement. Yes, if the owner
> could not redeem for the damage, or loss in time, he could bring civil
> damages for restitution, but that's a different matter than involving
> the criminal justice system itself for policing such matters in terms
> of criminal law.
>
> You did good Bill. At least I thought so.

Thank you, Frank.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: New York cell phone ban
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:38:18 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote:

> > > How does one determine what custom should be enshrined into law?

> > Might as well toss a coin or something. Remember, it's just to set
the
> > default, and establish criteria for notice to overcome the default.

> Why establish/impose the "default" in the first place?

To remove confusion. Like establishing which side of the road to drive
on, establishing weights & measures, establishing language of air
traffic control, etc. There are plenty of statutory or judicial terms
that exist tacitly in contracts of all sorts, that save people the
trouble of communicating them expressly every time.

> This takes it out of the hands of people.

The people can always "contract around" the default.

> > But I wrote about situations such as this, where society is at least
> > temporarily on the fence, roughly midway between those positions.

> You missed the question. If the collective opinion is "we don't have
> one", or "none worth hassling over", there is no worth to forced
action.

If the collective opinion really is that it's not worth hassling over,
then they won't mind either way, will they? So imposing a default does
them no harm, at least. But there are many situations in which there
ARE serious opinions and consequences out there, but that no consensus
has been reached. In that case it's gainful for the law to clarify.

> If you impose a policy, you impose a decision. It is far easier to
> create a new law (which an ordinance is, let us not forget that), than
> to remove an existing one.

No, the procedure's actually a little simpler to remove one. Less
writing.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: EC Meeting
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:47:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>,
Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>,
Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
<michael@Gabrielcomm.net>,
Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>,
Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>,
David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>,
<birvin@allidaho.com>,
Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>,
Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

reply all,

on 11/15/02 12:30 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> I imagine we should all be thinking about possible
> nominees to the committee.

--judicial, 'chelle was writing about.

as i've written in another venue, i nominate myself for the judicial
committie, with a proven record.

uhhh, in relation to paying bills, did ted ever get paid the $400.00 the
party owes him?

thanks, folks for no "closed doors"!!

LF

(damn, dennis, i hope your name wasn't on the "reply all" list. i couldn't
figure how to read all the reciepents)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: one other thing!! Re: EC Meeting
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:03:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>,
Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>,
Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
<michael@Gabrielcomm.net>,
Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>,
Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>,
David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>,
<birvin@allidaho.com>,
Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>,
Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

reply all,

if you folks are gonna put frank's "owned" group on the list of
communication, risking duplication, ya damned well outta put
"idaholibertarians" on the list, un-owned as it is.

already there are "non-common" humans.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: EC Meeting/Judicial Committee
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:27:57 -0700
From: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
To: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>, Ted Dunlap <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Stan Smith <parkside@icehouse.net>, Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Greg Maeser <Rent2own1@aol.com>, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
Michelle Eilers <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, michael@Gabrielcomm.net,
Michael Gollaher <OGollaher@fosella.com>,
Lowell Savage <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>, libnw@immosys.com,
Larry Fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, jlo@nichebuilders.com,
James Oyler <constrct@micron.net>,
Gordon Wilmoth <gwilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
Donald Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>, David Terry <davidt@onlinemac.com>,
Brooke Wilmoth <gnarfling@yahoo.com>, birvin@allidaho.com,
Rob Oates <roates@sears.com>, Robbi Kier <robbi_kier@excite.com>

At 12:30 AM -0800 11/15/02, Michelle wrote:
> > There was a vote made at the last meeting to discuss
>> potential members
>> to the Judicial committee. So far, no discussion has
>> happened.
>
>I definitely agree that we need to create this
>committee. How many members does the committee need?

It's not defined, though an odd number works best. We had three in
our KC Judicial Committee.

>Is there a description in the Constitution about
>exactly what the Judicial committee is supposed to do?

No. It's very vague and there are no precedents for it anywhere,
except for a few vague and politically frustrating notes on the US
Senate. In KC, our duty was to gather information from both sides and
come up with a suggestion to the central committee based on our
findings. The central committee, of course, can ignore all that, as
they did here in KC.

>I imagine we should all be thinking about possible
>nominees to the committee.

Both sides had input on the appointments. There was one member who
was, at the time, thought to be against the person we were
investigating. the others (Jerry and I) were thought to be neutral,
which is why we were chosen. They picked only three, figuring that
any more would make setting meetings and getting things done all the
more difficult.

DAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Jason Sorens and Idaho Radio [Friday at 5:05 p.m.MST]
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:54:55 -0700
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>,
"idaholibertarians" <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

ALERT! TODAY @ 5:05-6:00 P.M. MST!

Jason Sorens will be on a multi-station broadcast Friday at
5.05-6:00 p.m. MST (7:05-8:00 EST). He will be on
live at:
1240 KWIK Pocatello (Idaho's 2nd largest city)
590 KID Idaho Falls (Idaho's 3rd. largest city)

This interview is on the very popular "Trish and Halli" Show.
The two stations may be received all over eastern Idaho,
southwestern Montana, extreme western Wyoming, and
northern Utah (to Salt Lake City).

Check on the internet for radio streaming. 1240 KWIK
seems to have some streaming of their programs. I'm having
trouble with my computer...so check it out if you can't get
the stations.

The potential audience is over two million (counting metro SLC).

Ben

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FSP-state-discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Devvy Kidd...Call Your Member of Congress Now]
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:47:02 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

Group,
Two useful phone numbers that we can use as we already paid for the
service,wether we like it or not. See attachment.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Charleston Voice <CV@knology.net>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:14 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Devvy Kidd...Call Your Member of Congress Now]

>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Devvy Kidd...Call
Your Member of
Congress Now.eml
Devvy Kidd...Call Your Member of Congress Now.eml Type: Microsoft MHTML
Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: test
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:35:39 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: test-II
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:13:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

test
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration]
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:31:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

This has to be taken with some appreciation for the value in which it comes.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:47:01 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2002/nov06/thomas.html

MIT News Forum | WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002

Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration

By Sarah H. Wright, News Office

Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought the grit and whir of a White House
press conference to Bartos Theater on Monday evening, speaking with passion
about the media's role in a democracy whose leaders seem eager for war.

Actually, the 82-year-old former United Press International reporter didn't
just speak: she surged into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate
sense of the grumpy wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on
American presidents Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting
edge.

"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is
now a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself,
'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary from
war,
President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens,
pretty much in that order.

Angered by what she views as the Bush administration's "bullying drumbeat,"
Thomas referred early and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from
poets and politicians to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues.

Winston Churchill, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Louis Brandeis, George Santayana,
Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. all made
appearances in Thomas' sweeping portrayal of what she sees as the
administration's betrayal of both the character and will of the American
people and the principles of democracy.

"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's
policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl
Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said
to enthusiastic applause.

Thomas ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and
shouting matches of the Washington press corps.

"Where is the outrage?" she demanded. "Where is Congress? They're supine!
Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society
where a president can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary]
Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The
international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and
soul."

Like any star, Thomas, who resigned from UPI in 2000, appreciated her
audience's thirst to get the insider's view of our national leaders, and
she gave generously, in snapshots, though the Reagan and both Bush regimes
were cast
in darker hues.

"Great presidents have great goals for mankind. During my years of covering
the White House, Kennedy was the most inspired; Johnson rammed through
voting rights and public housing; Nixon will be remembered for his trip to
China and for his resignation; Ford for helping us recover from Nixon; and
Carter for making human rights the centerpiece of foreign policy," Thomas
said in an even, respectful tone. She just sighed over Clinton, who
"tarnished the Oval Office."

Thomas' mood became visibly more somber at the mention of Ronald Reagan's
military buildup and at the name Bush. Again and again, Thomas warned the
MIT audience, "It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush
and
his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!"

After her talk, Thomas participated in a panel discussion with MacVicar
Faculty Fellows David Thorburn, professor of literature, and Charles
Stewart III, professor of political science. Philip S. Khoury, dean of the
School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, introduced the speakers.

"Helen Thomas offered a very powerful indictment of the current behavior of
the Bush presidency in her comments on the incoherence and inconsistency of
Bush's policies and the danger to civil liberties of Bush's rhetoric," said
Thorburn.

He compared the lack of public awareness of an antiwar movement in 1965
and 1966 with the wide public debate about Iraq going on today. "An aroused
citizenry can instruct the government," he said.

Stewart also focused on the current public debate about Iraq, declaring
that it may be a "hopeful sign. The polls say Americans don't want to talk
about Iraq - they want to talk about the economy, about education. But the
press has continued to point out the important thing. Everyone knows
there's been a dance between the President and Congress over Iraq."

Thomas didn't let the press off the hook, though. "Everybody learned the
lessons of Vietnam, including the Pentagon. In Vietnam, correspondents
could go anywhere - just hop on a helicopter and report on the war. Now we
don't have that access. It's total secrecy. The media overlords should be
complaining about this. I do not absolve the press. We've rolled over and
played dead, too," she said.

Asked to advise young journalists, Thomas pounced. "Remind the politicians
you interview that you pay them, that they are public servants. Remember
every question is legitimate. And don't give up. There's always a leak.
There's
always someone who's trying to save the country," she said.

The talk was sponsored by the MIT Communications Forum.


--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:56:40 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:56:45 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:56:56 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 15:56:39 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:56:42 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:56:39 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:56:47 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Kicking Uncle Sam off the ranch
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:44:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again everyone!

Here is one fine article that fairly represents how the Federal government
is able to expand its unconstitutional grab on private real estate. This has
happened, and is happening in regions such as north Idaho, as well as
throughout the country. What such organizations are searching for is prime
agricultural land, usually fronting a stream or river, land which for
decades has been responsibly managed by private property owners.

Once the land has been purchased by these government-funded front
organizations, the land is turned around and sold to the Federal government
at a profit, increasing the inventory of Federal "ownership" using
taxpayer's money.

Kindest regards,
Frank


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Kicking Uncle Sam off the ranch
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:42:02 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Kicking Uncle Sam off the ranch
By Henry Lamb
Saturday, November 16, 2002

Letters from readers are always helpful. The feedback provides a way to
measure how
readers feel about the issue raised. Here is a question that several readers
raised:

I have recently read your article entitled Higher taxes guaranteed. OK, I
have been
reading this kind of material from others, and I am starting to become
convinced that there
is enough being said about government buying up land, etc., but not enough
being said
about what can be done to stop this government intrusion.

Concerned land owner,
Dean Smallwood

It is important to know, and to help others understand, why government
should not own
the land. Individual freedom arises from private property ownership. Our
founders were
committed to the principle of private, rather than government, ownership of
property, and
placed constitutional limits on the purposes for which the federal
government may
purchase land: only with "just compensation" and with the approval of the
state legislature.

By contrast, the first principle of socialism is public (government)
ownership of all sources
of production. Land is the source of all production. Federal, state and
local governments
now own more than 40 percent of all the land in the United States. If
America is to remain
a free nation, it is imperative that government land acquisition be stopped
and the
government land inventory reduced to those holdings authorized by the
Constitution.

How to achieve this goal begins with awareness, but must not stop there. On
Nov. 5,
nearly 100 communities offered ballot initiatives to increase taxes
expressly for the
purpose of government land acquisition. Most of these initiatives were
adopted, providing
funds to continue the government takeover of private property.

What can we do about it? We can work to persuade our neighbors to vote
against these
ballot initiatives.

Every year, environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the
Trust for
Public Land, the American Farmland Trust and hundreds of other groups line
up at the
federal trough for their annual grants from taxpayer funds to serve as
surrogate realtors for
various levels of government. These organizations routinely identify the
land for
government to buy, they often initiate negotiations with landowners, and
frequently, they
buy the land with tax dollars, and then resell the land to government, often
at a profit.

What can we do about it? We can work to convince Congress to stop giving our
tax
dollars to these organizations. Period.

It is difficult for individuals to be very effective at these tasks, acting
alone. That's why it is
important for people who are concerned about this problem to get acquainted
with others
who share their concern. Working together, even a handful of people can
accomplish
great things. In every state, and most communities, there are organizations
working to
promote private property rights in public policy. Some of these
organizations are listed
here. An Internet search will locate dozens more organizations.

What can we do about it? We can join one or more of these organizations, and
work
together to stop the government land-grabs that are taking place across the
country.
Those who cannot get personally, actively involved can certainly write a
check to support
those organizations that are working on their behalf.

To prevent this transformation of America, we need to do even more. The
public attitude
has been shaped and prepared to accept the idea of "protecting" land from
private owners
by a generation or more of environmental propaganda in our schools. For
example, the
National Wildlife Federation received a $3.8 million grant from the
Environmental
Protection Agency to produce and provide "educational" materials for
elementary schools
(Federal Award Identifier Number: X 824877010).

What can we do about it? We can review all the material that our children
are required to
study in our schools, and work through local, state and national
organizations to demand
that our tax dollars not be used for these purposes. We must see that our
children are not
indoctrinated and used to advance a social agenda.

There is much that we can do, and in the last few years, more and more
people are doing
it, joining together to take effective, coordinated action to advance the
principles of
freedom, instead of expanding government and government's inventory of land.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29688

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Homeschoolers get knock on door from police
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:47:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Homeschoolers get knock on door from police
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:13:53 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Homeschoolers get knock on door from police
Despite law, superintendent sends out squad cars to ensure
compliance
By Art Moore
Monday, November 18, 2002

A public school superintendent has sent police in squad cars to the houses
of homeschooling
families to deliver his demand that they appear for a "pre-trial hearing" to
prove they are in
compliance with the law.

Bruce Dennison, regional superintendent of schools in Bureau, Stark, and
Henry counties in
Northeastern Illinois, has contacted more than 22 families, insisting that
they need his approval to
conduct education at home.

Dennison is exceeding his authority, according to Chris Klicka of the
Homeschool Legal Defense
Association, or HSLDA, who argues that homeschooling is legal in Illinois
and families do not need
school district approval to teach their own children.

"He's muscling the homeschoolers pretty heavily," Klicka told WorldNetDaily.
"One truant officer
told a family that he 'could take away the kids if he wanted to.'"

Also, a district attorney in the area has threatened to prosecute families
that do not submit to
requests to have their program approved, said Klicka.

But state law is straightforward and simple, Klicka insists. A 1950 Illinois
Supreme Court decision,
People v. Levisen, established that homeschooling falls under the
requirements of a private school.
Private schools are required only to teach the same branches of instruction
as public schools and
to do it in the English language.

Dennison was not available for comment.

The situation is one of many around the nation addressed by HSLDA in which
school districts and
government officials are seeking to wield greater control over home-based
education. The U.S.
now has as many as 2 million homeschoolers, according to some estimates.

The state of California is warning parents that they cannot educate their
children at home without
acquiring a professional teaching credential. Officials maintain this stance
despite a statute that
allows any parent to homeschool under a private school exemption. Homeschool
defenders note
that districts are motivated to keep as many children in public school as
possible because funds are
allotted per student.

Klicka said other superintendents in Illinois accept the procedure for
homeschooling in the state
that his group advises, which is to prepare a "statement of assurance."

If a family is contacted, according to Klicka, they say, "We've established
a private school in our
home pursuant to the Levison case. We're teaching the same branches of
instruction as public
schools."

But Christine Fortune told WND that two squad cars showed up at her house in
Geneseo, Ill., in
Henry County, in late October to deliver a letter demanding that she appear
at a "pre-trial" hearing.

One police cruiser pulled into her driveway, another parked on the street.
One policeman then
accompanied a truant officer and case worker to her door, while the other
police officer waited in
his car.

"I was very angry," said Fortune, who homeschools her 14-year-old daughter
Stephanie. "[My
children] were really perplexed why the police were coming for me. It was
way overkill for
something that was not even a certified, subpoena kind of letter. It was
just something they could
have popped in the mail."

Fortune, who served as a substitute public school teacher in the country for
about 10 years, said
she had homeschooled prior to this school year without any interference.

Klicka said that if a superintendent had evidence that a family is lying or
is fraudulent, he should
refer it to the prosecutor, but "this superintendent is thinking, 'I've got
to approve the curriculum,
I've got to check up on the parents.'"

Homeschoolers are under no legal obligation to attend "pre-trial hearings,"
which have no
standards or guarantees, Klicka maintains.

"They're not really 'pre-trial' because there are no charges filed," he
said. "It's just part of the
intimidation tactics."

When questioned, the district attorney had no idea what standards would be
used to judge a
homeschooler's curriculum, Klicka said.

On Oct. 18, just four or five days prior to the police-escorted visit to
Fortune's house, the
homeschool mother allowed a case worker from the school district to come
into her home.
HSLDA contends that mandatory home visits are violations of a family's right
to privacy and the
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution's
14th Amendment.

"On the phone, [the case worker] said she wanted to review the curriculum
and see if I needed
any help - is how she was phrasing it," Fortune said.

The case worker was escorted to a room to see the computer-based curriculum
Fortune's
daughter uses.

"The beauty of that program is it's perfect for any questions she would
have," Fortune said. "It has
a record of grades and the things that have been done and lesson plans. I
could have just produced
that for her very easily, but she never asked."

Instead, said Fortune, the case worker "was fixated on attendance records."

That struck Fortune as being rather odd: "I said, 'I don't do that - we
don't punch a time clock. I
just write down what we do.'"

"I kept telling her," said Fortune, "'[My children] live here; they haven't
been absent once from the
home.'"

Since the police visit, Fortune has been referring all communication to
HSLDA, which is helping
another three of the more than 22 families who are in a similar situation.
Membership with the
Virginia-based group allows homeschool families to take advantage of their
legal resources.

Klicka said he is advising his member families not to go to the hearings or
allow home visits but to
"stand on a simple letter declaring they are legally homeschooling as a
private school."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29685

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: test IV
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:31:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: membership statistics - 31 October 2002
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:36:35 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Joe Dehn has just released the most current membership statistics (see
below). Troubling: although the majority of states gained modestly in
terms of growth, Idaho shows a significant decline in the percent of
growth to -1.5%. Hope the party, and our elected leadership can work
together and address turning this figure around.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: membership statistics - 31 October 2002
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:08:00 -0800
From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
To: LPUS@dehnbase.org (LP business - news and announcements)

National Libertarian Party Membership Statistics

Statistics as of 31 October 2002

Total dues-paying members in areas with affiliate parties: 23755
Overall density: 83.4 members per million population

Change since Growth %Growth Growth/pop
four years ago (31Oct1998) -5625 -19.1 -19.8
record high (30Nov1999) -9740 -29.1 -34.2
last pres. election (31Oct2000) -9016 -27.5 -31.7
beginning of year (31Dec2001) -3976 -14.3 -14.0
convention (30Jun2002) -1284 -5.1 -4.5
30 September 2002 (one month) -42 -0.2 -0.1

Highest Ranking States (growth since 30 September 2002 (one
month))

Number Density #Growth %Growth Growth/pop
CA 4117 NH 198.5 CA 24 DE 8.2 DE 6.3
GA 1293 AK 187.4 IN 18 MT 5.7 MT 5.5
TX 1283 VT 161.5 TX 13 SD 5.4 AK 3.2
FL 1220 CO 156.0 AL 12 WV 3.9 IN 2.9
MI 1072 GA 154.2 CO 9 AL 3.8 AL 2.7
PA 997 WA 138.4 OR 9 UT 3.7 OR 2.6
IL 851 DC 134.7 FL 6 IN 3.1 SD 2.6
WA 829 NV 125.8 MD 6 OR 2.5 UT 2.6
NY 813 WY 125.4 UT 6 AK 1.7 CO 2.0
OH 807 CA 119.3 DE 5 WY 1.6 WY 2.0
VA 754 MA 111.3 MT 5 MD 1.4 WV 1.7
MA 710 NM 109.9 WA 5 CO 1.3 MD 1.1
CO 689 MI 107.3 AZ 3 LA 1.3 WA 0.8
IN 597 OR 106.3 WV 3 OK 1.2 CA 0.7
NC 554 ME 104.9 AK 2 TX 1.0 AZ 0.6
NJ 538 VA 104.9 LA 2 SC 0.8 OK 0.6
AZ 431 MT 101.7 NC 2 AZ 0.7 TX 0.6
MD 426 ID 101.4 OK 2 KY 0.7 SC 0.5
MO 378 IN 97.6 SC 2 CA 0.6 FL 0.4
TN 372 DE 82.9 SD 2 WA 0.6 LA 0.4
OR 369 CT 82.0 KY 1 FL 0.5 KY 0.2
AL 327 HI 81.7 OH 1 NC 0.4 NC 0.2
MN 326 AZ 81.2 VA 1 OH 0.1 OH 0.1
WI 317 PA 81.1 WY 1 VA 0.1 VA 0.1
CT 281 MD 79.3 DC 0 DC 0.0 DC 0.0
NV 265 KS 76.8 HI 0 HI 0.0 HI 0.0
SC 260 UT 74.9 KS 0 KS 0.0 KS 0.0
NH 250 FL 74.4 MN 0 MN 0.0 MN 0.0
KS 207 AL 73.2 ND 0 ND 0.0 ND 0.0
NM 201 OH 71.0 NV 0 NV 0.0 NV 0.0
IA 192 IL 68.2 TN 0 TN 0.0 TN 0.0
UT 170 NC 67.7 ME -1 MI -0.6 MS -0.3
OK 167 MO 67.1 MS -1 ME -0.7 AR -0.7
LA 159 IA 65.7 AR -2 IL -1.2 MI -0.7
KY 149 MN 65.6 ID -2 WI -1.2 WI -0.7
ME 135 TN 64.8 RI -2 MS -1.3 IL -0.8
ID 134 SC 64.0 VT -2 CT -1.4 ME -0.8
AR 128 NJ 63.4 CT -4 AR -1.5 NY -0.9
AK 119 TX 60.2 NE -4 ID -1.5 CT -1.2
HI 100 WI 58.7 NM -4 GA -1.6 NJ -1.3
VT 99 NE 52.5 WI -4 PA -1.6 PA -1.3
MT 92 ND 52.0 NH -5 MA -1.8 ID -1.5
NE 90 SD 51.5 MI -7 NH -2.0 RI -1.9
WV 80 RI 51.0 IL-10 NJ -2.0 MA -2.0
DC 77 OK 48.3 MO-11 NM -2.0 MO -2.0
MS 76 AR 47.5 NJ-11 NY -2.0 NM -2.2
DE 66 WV 44.4 MA-13 VT -2.0 NE -2.3
WY 62 NY 42.8 PA-16 MO -2.8 GA -2.5
RI 54 KY 36.6 NY-17 RI -3.6 VT -3.3
SD 39 LA 35.6 GA-21 NE -4.3 NH -4.0
ND 33 MS 26.6 IA-45 IA-19.0 IA-15.4

areas with currently recognized affiliates: 23755
other US areas (territories, etc.) 14
APO/FPO 31
non-US 12
------
23812

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: membership statistics - 31 October 2002
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:27:54 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

> Joe Dehn has just released the most current membership statistics (see
> below). Troubling: although the majority of states gained modestly in
> terms of growth

No, the majority showed either no gains or declines, with declining
states outnumbering gainers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: membership statistics - 31 October 2002
Date: 21 Nov 2002 16:27:26 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: LibertyNW <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: Idaho Libs1 <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 18:36, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> Joe Dehn has just released the most current membership statistics (see
> below). Troubling: although the majority of states gained modestly in
> terms of growth, Idaho shows a significant decline in the percent of
> growth to -1.5%. Hope the party, and our elected leadership can work
> together and address turning this figure around.

Again, with the statistically insignificant number (2). Two is the
loneliest number since the number one.

I received the weekly update from National. This week alone we had two
new members sign up. This one week's increase offsets the whole of
October's net loss.

If we had a loss of two every other month, with an increase of 4 in the
intervening months, we would be ahead of the game. One can not
realistically determine much from a one-month snapshot.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: War against Iraq may plunge world into deep recession
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:01:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com, Lon Woodbury <lon@woodbury.com>,
Asbury Park Press <yourviews@app.com>,
Courier News <cnletter@c-n.com>,
Home News & Tribune <letters@thnt.com>,
Middle American News <manews@manews.org>, NAAWP <naawp@juno.com>,
NATIONALIST TIMES <mail@anu.org>,
Newark Star Ledger <eletters@starledger.com>,
OBSERVER <observer@app.com>, Trenton Times <letters@pressplus.com>,
Trentonian <editor@trentonian.com>,
USA Today <editor@usatoday.com>,
newsletter <newsletter@VERTICAL.NET>,
"M.O.M." <militia@montana.com>,
Spokesman-Review <editor@spokesman.com>,
Bonner County Daily Bee <kmiller@cdapress.com>,
Coeur d'Alene Press <editor@cdapress.com>,
Idaho Statesman <news@idstates.com>,
Albuquerque Journal <opinion@abqjournal.com>,
Atlanta_Journal Constitution <journal@ajc.com>,
Denver Post <letters@denverpost.com>,
Fox News <comments@foxnews.com>, L_A TImes <letters@latimes.com>,
New_York Post <letters@nypost.com>,
New_York Times <letters@nytimes.com>,
Orlando Sentinel <insight@orlandosentinel.com>,
Philadelphia Inquirer <inquirer.letters@phillynews.com>,
The Federalist <comments@federalist.com>,
Washington Post <letters@washpost.com>,
Idaho Observer <observer@coldreams.com>

Greetings everyone!

Here's an assessment that merits reading, put out by a Saudi news
agency regarding the likely huge costs surrounding initiating a 'war
on Iraq', costs, according to this article, that the Shrub Regime<tm>
has not be forthcoming with the American people as a likely result.

Thanks and acknowledgement is given to the Militia of Montana (MOM)
for
passing this story on.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: War against Iraq may plunge world into deep
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:31:14 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

http://www.arabnews.com/print.asp?id=20419&ArY=2002&amp;ArM=11&amp;ArD=18

Arab News
SAUDI ARABIA'S FIRST ENGLISH LANGUAGE DAILY

War against Iraq may plunge world into deep recession
By Andrew Gumbel
Published on 17 November 2002

LONDON
17 November 2002

A war against Iraq could cost the United States hundreds of billions
of dollars, play havoc with an already depressed domestic economy and
tip the world into recession because of the adverse effect on oil
prices, inflation and interest rates, an academic study has warned.

According to William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale
University, the best-case scenario of a short, clean war is likely to
incur costs for which no amount of increased Iraqi oil production
could compensate.

If the conflict becomes protracted and involves urban guerrilla
fighting, the destruction of Iraq's oil fields, or the use of
biological or chemical weapons, the costs of both the fighting and
post-war reconstruction could multiply.

The Bush administration has not prepared the public for the cost or
the financing of what could prove to be an expensive venture,
Professor Nordhaus said. Perhaps the administration is fearful that a
candid discussion of wartime economics will give ammunition to
skeptics of the war; perhaps it worries acknowledging the costs will
endanger the large future tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of its
domestic policy.

None the less, the price must be paid, by raising taxes, by cutting
expenditures, or by forcing the Federal Reserve do the job by raising
interest rates. One way or another, Americans will pay for the war.
Professor Nordhaus's analysis, part which was published in this week's
New York Review of Books, is based on estimates from the US government
as well as private research by Washington think-tanks.

Two official recent studies, one by the Democratic Party contingent of
the House Budget Committee, the other by the Congressional Budget
Office, both put the baseline cost of the initial military campaign at
about $50 billion (31 billion pounds), a little less than the cost of
the last Gulf War. That assumes a force of about 250,000 troops, which
is what the latest leaks of the Pentagon's plans suggest, roughly half
the number deployed in 1991. The big difference between now and 11
years ago is that the United States will almost certainly have to foot
the bill itself; in 1991, most of the effort to roll back the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait was underwritten by US allies, leaving Washington
with just over $2 billion to pay itself.

That $50 billion does not take into account the costs of a post-war
military occupation. Professor Nordhaus estimates anywhere from $75
billion to $500 billion (47 billion pounds to 316 billion pounds),
depending on the length and difficulty of the operation or the task of
rebuilding the country and nurturing its economic development. To
rebuild modestly, bringing Iraq up to the level of Iran or Egypt would
cost at least $20 billion; launching an Iraqi-style Marshall Plan
could cost as much as $100 billion.

Professor Nordhaus noted the poor US record in standing by its postwar
reconstruction promises. In Afghanistan, for example, it has spent
just $10 million on economic redevelopment compared with the $13
billion on the bombings and Special Forces operations. But he also
argued that neglect would carry its own price as a furious Middle East
vents its anti-Americanism on the occupying army and on US targets
around the world.

The baseline figures are a best-case scenario. A modest amount of
disruption could push the price of the war up to $140 billion, or 1.5
percent of US gross domestic product. There has been much talk of
renewed Iraqi oil supplies offsetting the cost of war and, to a large
degree, justifying it. But Professor Nordhaus argued that the best
hope, bringing Iraqi production quickly up to three million barrels a
day, would yield only about $25 billion a year. Most of that would be
needed for food, medicine and other immediate necessities, and the
rest would probably go to paying off the $300 billion in unpaid
claims from other countries left over from the 1991 war. (The
Independent)

-> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without

profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year
(Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically
incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be
had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Spam, not in a can
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:27:49 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill

> Do Sears, IBM, Ford, Chevy, Wal-mart, etc. send you spam? I've never
> seen them spam. Yet is is legal to do so, and quite honestly *very*
> cost-effective.

I did not say that spam from reputable companies is a problem.

> Like it or not, spam is commercial speech. Should we also ban
> telemarketers, or salesman who come to your door?

There is nothing magical about commercial speech that means
it requires special protection. If people want to speak,
let them offer incentives to encourage people to listen.

The answer is yes to your question if telemarketers become
as serious a problem as spam. Why should religious
nutcases get to preach their message at your home?

Speech should be free but not force-fed. In fact,
force-feeding is the very opposite of freedom.

Remember "The Prisoner" who refused to conform.

Why should the government be involved in protecting
those who want to force their speech on you?

Why not limit government?

Regards
Tim

Matthew 3:10
Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down and cast into the fire

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spam, not in a can
Date: 20 Nov 2002 12:28:37 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 10:27, Tim Bedding wrote:
> Bill
>
> > Do Sears, IBM, Ford, Chevy, Wal-mart, etc. send you spam? I've never
> > seen them spam. Yet is is legal to do so, and quite honestly *very*
> > cost-effective.
>
> I did not say that spam from reputable companies is a problem.

But you miss that it is not a problem. Why is it not a problem from
them? They do not want the social disapproval that goes with it.
Why? they get feedback from it. 99% of the spammers do not get the
feedback due to the nature of it.

>
>
> > Like it or not, spam is commercial speech. Should we also ban
> > telemarketers, or salesman who come to your door?
>
> There is nothing magical about commercial speech that means
> it requires special protection. If people want to speak,
> let them offer incentives to encourage people to listen.

There is nothing special about commercial speech that means it requires
special status as something that needs attacked.

> The answer is yes to your question if telemarketers become
> as serious a problem as spam. Why should religious
> nutcases get to preach their message at your home?

Red Herring/Straw man. Who said anything about religion?

>
> Speech should be free but not force-fed. In fact,
> force-feeding is the very opposite of freedom.

Nothing being force fed. Just like the commercial in my favorite TV
shows are not force fed. If I don't like the commercial, I don't watch
it. I can change the channel, go to the kitchen, etc.. With spam, I can
delete it, or even use spam filtering mail services or features. I can
(and have) report the spammer to the ISP, and if the ISP fails to take
action, report it to one of the blacklist services, and block the ISP.

"Reporting takes time!" Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Laws do not just
enforce themselves. A report has to be made. If you won't take the time
to report the spam now, just why should one believe you will when it is
illegal.

If it were illegal, the defense would be a request from you to them. no
problem, I can fake an email from you in about 5 minute, turn it into a
script where I feed it a list of email addresses and viola! Instant
record of you requesting the information. now, the law has levied high
costs, increased taxes, court cases clogging up the system, and the
spammer just shifted.

"Oh, but that would be illegal", you say? Duh. Criminals break the law,
by definition.

There is a law against "fax-spam", or "unsolicited commercial faxes",
that levy a 500 fine against the perpetrator. However, the fax mechanism
provides a means of easily tracking down the perpetrator. The cost of
going through pone anonymizers is difficult, especially for fax
transmissions, thus it is not done.

> Why should the government be involved in protecting
> those who want to force their speech on you?

Why should the government be involved in telling you what you can and
can not say?

> Why not limit government?

That's what I am saying. Do not give it the power to decide what is OK
to say, and what is not. Giving the government the power to say "no, you
can't send that email, or if you do we will confiscate your
money/computer/life/whatever" is *not* limiting it; it is growing it.

Let the people do it. I, and most people, can tell 99% of spam by the
subject line, or the to or from address, in seconds, if that. I then
delete it. A government regulation can not do that, nor do I trust some
government bureaucrat to do it for me. My choice.

You still sidestep that fact that clearly, spam *works*. I saw a damned
good quote today:
"Whenever the question starts with "Why don't they ...", the answer is
"Money".

Further, you fail to address the multi-national nature of the network,
and the exorbitant costs in enforcing anti-spam legislation. let alone
the multitude of options for dealing w/spam w/o the government's
involvement.

Bill

The road to oppressive taxation is paved with good intentions and "there
outta be a law"s -- Bill Anderson (yeah, me)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spam, not in a can
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill

> Why should the government be involved in telling you what you can and
> can not say?

It is not at all about what you can say. The issue is
consent, not content.

You can preach a religion about the effectiveness
of spam filtering in designated public areas.
Just do not trespass on my time or my mailbox with
that stuff.

You think that it is okay for the government to just stand
back while people use a ghetto-blaster to propel their message
into your home?

> That's what I am saying. Do not give it the power to decide what is
> OK to say, and what is not. Giving the government the power to say
> "no,
> you can't send that email, or if you do we will confiscate your
> money/computer/life/whatever" is *not* limiting it; it is growing it.

So you think that speech should be totally free.
You think that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is okay?

> You still sidestep that fact that clearly, spam *works*. I saw a
> damned good quote today:

Yes, crime works. Why do you rob banks? It is where the money is.

Murder works too. So does war.

> Further, you fail to address the multi-national nature of the
> network, and the exorbitant costs in enforcing anti-spam legislation.
> let alone the multitude of options for dealing w/spam w/o the
> government's involvement.

Why should I spend my money on anti-spam measures? That is
cost-shifting. The problem is the spammers, not the recipients.

All I want is an off-switch for spam, like for the television.
Your luddite approach is holding back freedom and
choice, not expanding it.

If a television channel is showing what you do not want, you could
just learn to ignore it. But why not simply invent a way
to change channels?

> If it were illegal, the defense would be a request from you to them.
> No problem, I can fake an email from you in about 5 minute, turn it
> into a script where I feed it a list of email addresses and viola!

That is a technical issue which we can discuss after you
have conceded the principle that people should not be
harrassed in their own mailboxes by garbage that they
did not subscribe to.

> Now, the law has levied high
> costs, increased taxes, court cases clogging up the system, and the
> spammer just shifted.

So, we let murderers go just because people might have to go
to court. If you are anti-court, then you are just about
as anti-liberty as you could be.

Regards
Tim

LA Story
Harris: The sign spoke to me. It said I was in trouble.
Trudi: You're talking to signs. You are in trouble.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spam, not in a can
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:57:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Bill Anderson...

> That is a technical issue which we can discuss after you
> have conceded the principle that people should not be
> harrassed in their own mailboxes by garbage that they
> did not subscribe to.

I followed you down to this point, and that has me wondering. What do
you do with your "other" mailbox, the one where your mail comes in,
when you pick up the unwanted garbage of commercial solicitors
flooding your mail box with unwanted propaganda?

I imagine you do what I do. You just throw it away and be done with
it. In e-traffic, you have to devise a way to do the same. That's
really your responsibility. How can you believe everyone else has an
obligation not to write to you and solicit their products or services?
It happens every day in the old fashioned postal system.

If you really want to end the spam, do as I did. Employ a screening
service to end the spam. That costs a little, for me about $3.00 a
month using NETADDRESS.COM, but most of my email passes through that
gate, and the spam is controlled almost 100 percent and never reaches
me. Once in a while things squeak through, but it is rather a rare
occurrence.

I guess what I am saying is relatively cheap technology currently
exists that might end your problem, without resorting to government
solutions to take care of you. Start thinking as libertarians do, take
care of yourself first, it's a much cheaper solution and it will work
if there is a demand as you claim to support such an endeavour.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spam, not in a can
Date: 21 Nov 2002 12:18:05 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 03:42, Tim Bedding wrote:
> Bill
>
> > Why should the government be involved in telling you what you can and
> > can not say?
>
> It is not at all about what you can say. The issue is
> consent, not content.
>
> You can preach a religion about the effectiveness
> of spam filtering in designated public areas.
> Just do not trespass on my time or my mailbox with
> that stuff.
>
>
> You think that it is okay for the government to just stand
> back while people use a ghetto-blaster to propel their message
> into your home?

Tim, your straw men are getting very ridiculous.

> > That's what I am saying. Do not give it the power to decide what is
> > OK to say, and what is not. Giving the government the power to say
> > "no,
> > you can't send that email, or if you do we will confiscate your
> > money/computer/life/whatever" is *not* limiting it; it is growing it.
>
> So you think that speech should be totally free.
> You think that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is okay?

Tim, your straw men are getting very ridiculous.

> > You still sidestep that fact that clearly, spam *works*. I saw a
> > damned good quote today:
>
> Yes, crime works. Why do you rob banks? It is where the money is.
>
> Murder works too. So does war.

No, much of the time they do not work. maybe it works well in England,
but not that terribly well here. usually because most criminals here are
just too stupid to pull it off crime or no crime. Maybe the anti-liberty
laws you guys have in England make it easier for it to work over there.
That law of unintended consequences again.

The point of spam working is apparently lost on you. If you want to stop
spam, you must address why it exists. If you fail to do so your chances
are less than minuscule, and eventually fruitless and expensive. Just
like the "war on drugs" the "war on campaign finance' the "war on
terror" and all sorts of others.

> > Further, you fail to address the multi-national nature of the
> > network, and the exorbitant costs in enforcing anti-spam legislation.
> > let alone the multitude of options for dealing w/spam w/o the
> > government's involvement.
>
> Why should I spend my money on anti-spam measures? That is
> cost-shifting. The problem is the spammers, not the recipients.

Who said you had to spend money? Nearly all of the methods I mentioned
are free. If you make a law, it must be enforced, and as I've mentioned,
and you refuse to acknowledge or deal with, the costs will be very high.
Guess who will pay that? Yup, the taxpayers. You will pay *more* if the
government is involved than if you were to do it yourself, or have a
private company do it. If you do not want to pay for it, do not ask the
government to do it, or you *will* be paying for it.

> All I want is an off-switch for spam, like for the television.
> Your luddite approach is holding back freedom and
> choice, not expanding it.

Tim, look up the word luddite. One who recommends a *technological*
approach to dealing with spam is not Luddite. If one of us were to be
arguing a luddite approach, it would be he who wants to solve it with
handcuffs, confiscation and guns.

>
> If a television channel is showing what you do not want, you could
> just learn to ignore it. But why not simply invent a way
> to change channels?

You are not proposing a channel changing technology (which I've already
pointed you to several mechanisms, some even embedded in your mail
client, e call them filters.). Rather you are proposing that the channel
be made illegal.

> > If it were illegal, the defense would be a request from you to them.
> > No problem, I can fake an email from you in about 5 minute, turn it
> > into a script where I feed it a list of email addresses and viola!
>
> That is a technical issue which we can discuss after you
> have conceded the principle that people should not be
> harrassed in their own mailboxes by garbage that they
> did not subscribe to.

If you believe this, then to be logically consistent, you must also call
for the elimination of all "junk mail" in your postal mailbox. Until you
do, your position is noting more than a special pleading. I do not
subscribe to telemarketing lists, I do not subscribe to all the
advertisements that show up in my postal mailbox, yet they show up on a
nearly daily basis. Likewise with the political fliers and such that
arrives on my door and porch during election season, or the fliers stuck
in my door by the local kid trying to earn money by wanting to mow my
lawn.

I don't subscribe for commercials to be sent to me over the TV airwaves.
yet, you are not saying those should be banned. I don't ask for
billboards when I walk or drive down the street, yet they are there. I
don't ask for advertisements to be pushed to me on the radio, yet they
are.

None of these are asked for, or subscribed to, yet they occur all the
time.

And guess what, it takes me more effort and time to deal with those than
it does with spam. I have more invested checking postal mail. It is far
easier to filter out, or prevent spam from being seen in my inbox than
it is for my mailbox.

If you are not willing to carry your asserted principle to the other
arenas that are the same in principle, it is not a principle. A
principle is something that applies to multiple scenarios. If you apply
the alleged principle to just one, and no others, it is a rule (or
special pleading), not a principle.

A crime must occur because a victim has been created. What victim is
created when:
1) a spam is sent
2) a spam is received
3) a postal mail advert is sent
4) a postal mail advert is received

Whether you like it or not, unless you run your own server, your email
inbox is not your property, so no property rights of yours have been
violated. The email address, again unless you own the server (you don't
own a domain, just lease it), is not yours. The bandwidth and lines are
not yours.

The only thing that is is your computer (presumably, though not always
the case), and when you signed up for the service you accepted that
whatever you downloaded is your responsibility. Just like when I turn on
the radio, I accept that there are going to be commercials (unless I am
using XM Satellite's commercial free channels), or the TV, or the
street.

> > Now, the law has levied high
> > costs, increased taxes, court cases clogging up the system, and the
> > spammer just shifted.
>
> So, we let murderers go just because people might have to go
> to court. If you are anti-court, then you are just about
> as anti-liberty as you could be.

More straw men. How disappointing. You even left out the rest of the
sentence which said that the spammer just shifted the costs to you;
whilst you said you didn't want to pay for it. That pesky law of
intended consequences strikes again.

Tim, I note you still fail to address several important points. Namely:

1) How does the state of Idaho (for example), apply it's laws to
spammers in Hong Kong (for example)?
2) The high cost of figuring out who to prosecute
3) These costs are borne by the taxpayer in a legal situation, not the
spammer, thus increasing your costs, not theirs.
4) If you can not be bothered with filing a report with an ISP, why
should I believe you would be bothered with filing a report with the
police? Spam won't report itself, and neither do spammers.
5) Making it illegal will not stop it

Further, your assertion that desiring to see the courts NOT be clogged
up by inane stuff as spam is anti-liberty is laughable. if anything,
wanting to see less things classified as crimes is more akin to being
for liberty than is wanting to see more things classified as being for
liberty.

If spam were to be made a crime, it would be more common than any other
crime, including drug use. Drug crimes are responsible for the problem
of overloaded courts as it is. This leads to crimes such as murder,
assault, and rape taking way too long to try.

A drug bust of minor proportions takes a beat cop off of his beat for
hours. A spam report would take far longer to track to a person,
especially since most spam incidents cross state and national
boundaries. During this time, resources that can be used for stopping
physical crimes, property and right violations, are being not pursued
due to the diverting of resources.

Bill

A government only has power over criminals. Thus, to increase it's
classification of crimes is to increase it's power.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spam, not in a can
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:20:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

Hi Tim,

> > That's what I am saying. Do not give it the power
> to decide what is
> > OK to say, and what is not. Giving the government
> the power to say
> > "no,
> > you can't send that email, or if you do we will
> confiscate your
> > money/computer/life/whatever" is *not* limiting
> it; it is growing it.
>
> So you think that speech should be totally free.
> You think that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is
> okay?

This "shouting fire in a theatre" argument is
irritating because people like to invoke it to justify
all manner of censorship. Shouting "fire" has very
little to do with "speech" at all; it is essentially
the same as falsely pulling a fire alarm. The reasons
it is "wrong" are that it puts people in jeopardy
(someone may be injured due to the panic caused) and
it interferes with the property rights of the people
who paid to see the movie and the theatre owner who
may see his building damaged.

Creating spam laws and giving the government the
ability to enforce them raises numerous potential
problems one of which, as Bill rightly pointed out, is
that it gives the government the right to decide what
spam is to censor the speech of people purportedly
sending "spam." Actually identifying "spam" is
definitely not the open and shut case you try to make
it out to be.

> > Further, you fail to address the multi-national
> nature of the
> > network, and the exorbitant costs in enforcing
> anti-spam legislation.
> > let alone the multitude of options for dealing
> w/spam w/o the
> > government's involvement.
>
> Why should I spend my money on anti-spam measures?
> That is
> cost-shifting. The problem is the spammers, not the
> recipients.
>
> All I want is an off-switch for spam, like for the
> television.
> Your luddite approach is holding back freedom and
> choice, not expanding it.
>
> If a television channel is showing what you do not
> want, you could
> just learn to ignore it. But why not simply invent a
> way
> to change channels?

It would be nice if we could just "wave a magic wand"
and make spam go away. The problem is that getting
rid of spam in real life is not that simple.

One of the biggest problems is the difficulty in
distinguishing spam from requested e-mail using an
automatic service. If I look through my inbox - as
Bill said before - I can identify 99% of the spam just
from the subject line or author. However, I got
annoyed having to delete all those e-mails so I turned
on my e-mail spam filtering option. This helps a
great deal, but I still get spam coming to my inbox
and sometimes requested e-mails get dumped as spam (I
check the filtered messages every so often and quite
frequently I find e-mails I wanted mixed in with the
spam).

It simply isn't possible to create an on/off switch
for spam.

> > If it were illegal, the defense would be a request
> from you to them.
> > No problem, I can fake an email from you in about
> 5 minute, turn it
> > into a script where I feed it a list of email
> addresses and viola!
>
> That is a technical issue which we can discuss after
> you
> have conceded the principle that people should not
> be
> harrassed in their own mailboxes by garbage that
> they
> did not subscribe to.

You are missing the point, Tim. Spam is "bad." It is
annoying, it wastes time, it clogs up e-mail accounts.
The problem is not whether spam is a problem; the
question is how to best deal with the spam. And those
of us who are libertarians think that private measures
- like the ones that are already in use - are more
effective than any government measures could possibly
be.

> > Now, the law has levied high
> > costs, increased taxes, court cases clogging up
> the system, and the
> > spammer just shifted.
>
> So, we let murderers go just because people might
> have to go
> to court. If you are anti-court, then you are just
> about
> as anti-liberty as you could be.

It's not about being "anti-court;" it is about
believing that the costs of enforcing spam laws would
far, far outweigh the benefits. Of even greater
importance, however, is that I do not want the police
and courts to spend time chasing after spammers when
they ought to be prosecuting murderers, rapists, and
robbers.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Total Information Awareness
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:18:21 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 20, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" database
is step toward police state, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- A massive public surveillance system under
development by the Pentagon - called "Total Information Awareness" -
could help lay the framework for a police state in America and should
be halted immediately, Libertarians say.

"This is Big Brother on steroids," said George Getz, Libertarian Party
communications director. "The government of a free country shouldn't
want surveillance powers like these. And the fact that the government
wants them is proof that it shouldn't have them."

The goal of the program, funded by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), is to construct a "virtual, centralized,
grand database" containing every Americans' electronic transactions,
such as credit card purchases, bank and medical records, travel data,
e-mails and phone calls. That information is to be linked with
biometric data such as face recognition technology and digital
fingerprints, and provided instantly to law enforcement to detect
patterns of terrorist activity, the government says.

Spearheading the initiative is former Navy Rear Adm. John Poindexter,
a
Reagan administration official who was implicated in the illegal sale
of arms to the Nicaraguan Contras.

As the anti-privacy aspects of the project have become clear, civil
liberties groups and editorial pages around the USA have urged
Congress
to torpedo the program.

"This project sends a message that every American should find
repugnant," Getz said. "Namely, that politicians and bureaucrats view
America as a sea of criminal suspects whose private behavior must be
tracked, catalogued and analyzed, just in case they commit a crime.

"So much for the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.
Just as in totalitarian states, your rights disappear at the whim of a
shadowy government employee intent on spawning another database.

"Unless this Orwellian project is dismantled, innocent Americans will
suffer under the kind of high-tech, 24-hour surveillance that the
Stasi
and the KGB would have envied."

Like most counterterrorism measures, Total Information Awareness is
based on a myth, Libertarians say - the myth that the only way to
prevent terrorism is to erode Americans' freedom.

"But there's already an effective, constitutional way to gather
evidence against any criminal suspect: Go to court and get a warrant,"
Getz said. "Call it Total Constitutional Awareness.

"The fact that terrorists destroyed thousands of lives on September 11
doesn't give politicians the right to destroy the privacy of millions
of other innocent individuals. It's time to tell the government: We
are
citizens, not criminal suspects. Pull the plug on this un-American spy
scheme."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 1/3 see Bush as danger to the world
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:03:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again everyone!

Check out THESE poll results! At least some of the rest of the world still
maintains some critical objectivity in their opinions these days. Thanks to
the Militia of Montana for passing this one on!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 1/3 see Bush as danger to the world.
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:12:04 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>
References: <20021116.151341.-120841.17.uaicms2@juno.com>


> One third see Bush as danger to world
>
> LONDON (Reuters) - One third of Britons believe that
> George W. Bush poses a greater threat to world peace
> than Saddam Hussein, according to a new poll.
>
> The survey, commissioned for Channel 4 News on Thursday, also found that a
> similar number of Britons had no trust in President Bush whatsoever and
> almost half thought Prime Minister Tony Blair was behaving like his
> lapdog.
>
> Seventy-six percent believed military action against Iraq may be necessary
> but only 13 percent definitely backed a strike on Baghdad, while nine
> percent were against. The pollsters did not account for the remaining two
> percent.
>
> The United Nations has given Iraqi President Saddam Hussein until Friday
> to accept the terms of a tough new weapons inspection regime or face
> "serious consequences". Both Bush and Blair have said that would mean
> military action.
>
> Asked to rate their trust in the two leaders on a scale of 0 to 10, with
> 10 reflecting total trust, 54 percent gave Bush a rating of two or lower.
> Thirty two percent rated him zero. Sixty percent gave Blair a rating of
> five or less.
>
> Of those undecided about military conflict, 49 percent said Saddam posed
> the greatest threat to world peace, while 32 percent said Bush posed the
> bigger danger.
>
> Forty-six percent believed Blair, who has given unquestioned public
> backing to Washington's tough line against Saddam, was Bush's lapdog.
> Thirty-five percent thought Blair was a restraining influence on the U.S.
> leader.
>
> U.S. pollster Frank Luntz, who sampled over 3,200 people for Thursday's
> survey, said the message for Blair was clear: his staunch backing for Bush
> was harming his image at home.
>
> "I would suggest that Blair ring up the broadcast media and say 'Keep
> President Bush, keep (vice president) Dick Cheney, keep all Americans with
> these American accents off television'."
>
--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 1/3 see Bush as danger to the world
Date: 21 Nov 2002 16:12:57 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: LibertyNW <libnw@immosys.com>

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 05:03, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again everyone!
>
> Check out THESE poll results! At least some of the rest of the world
> still maintains some critical objectivity in their opinions these
> days. Thanks to the Militia of Montana for passing this one on!

Yup, more sensationalism in the headlines.

>
> > [image]
> > [image]
> > One third see Bush as danger to world
> >
> > LONDON (Reuters) - One third of Britons believe that George W. Bush
> > poses a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein, according
> > to a new poll.

Bunk.

> > The survey, commissioned for Channel 4 News on Thursday, also found
> > that a similar number of Britons had no trust in President Bush
> > whatsoever and almost half thought Prime Minister Tony Blair was
> > behaving like his lapdog.
> >
> > Seventy-six percent believed military action against Iraq may be
> > necessary but only 13 percent definitely backed a strike on Baghdad,
> > while nine percent were against. The pollsters did not account for
> > the remaining two percent.

So, what is not put in the headline is that 76% (three out of four)of
those polled believe military action on Iraq may be needed.

Prepare for bunk removal process ...

> > Of those undecided about military conflict, 49 percent said Saddam
> > posed the greatest threat to world peace, while 32 percent said Bush
> > posed the bigger danger.

And here we see the meat. We see that the sensationalist headline was in
fact, a deception.

"Of those undecided about military conflict..." means that this one
third is only one third of a smaller portion. The report says that 9%
were against action, 13% favored, and 76% figure it will be necessary.
This leaves approximately 2% undecided. the unaccounted for percent in
the article.

This means that 1/3 of 2% felt bush was the greater danger. That would
be .64%, or about one in 156.

Now, one *could* say that those who decided action was likely necessary
are undecided about whether or not they support it. In which case it
would be 32% of 76%, or 24% of the total, or just under one in four.

Either way, the headline does not match the data in the report, or even
in the article. Deception and sensationalism at work. Are we suprised?
I'm not.

It looks like a poorly done survey. One may believe action may be
necessary, but support or not support it. Thus, if the question is as it
is reported, the stats reported are meaningless. False decision, and
piss-poor interpretation of the invalid data.

> > Forty-six percent believed Blair, who has given unquestioned public
> > backing to Washington's tough line against Saddam, was Bush's
> > lapdog. Thirty-five percent thought Blair was a restraining
> > influence on the U.S. leader.
> >
> > U.S. pollster Frank Luntz, who sampled over 3,200 people for
> > Thursday's survey, said the message for Blair was clear: his staunch
> > backing for Bush was harming his image at home.
> >
> > "I would suggest that Blair ring up the broadcast media and say
> > 'Keep President Bush, keep (vice president) Dick Cheney, keep all
> > Americans with these American accents off television'."

Numbers not looking good? Use the power of government to hide that which
is making the public unhappy! -- Yeap, sounds about right for a typical
pollster point of view.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - December 2, 2002 Issue
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:04:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The New American - December 2, 2002 Issue
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:38:13 -0800
From: alerts@thenewamerican.com
Reply-To: alerts@thenewamerican.com
To: "The New American Alert Network"
<the_new_american_network@burst.sparklist.com>

The following articles from the December 2, 2002 issue of The New
American
are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The December 2, 2002 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-02-2002/vo18no24.htm
----------------------------------------

Weapons of Mass Insurrection
Revolutionary zeal unites Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam with urban
street gangs and radical Muslim regimes, creating a serious threat to
America’s internal security.

Victims of the Hanoi Gulag
Normalizing U.S. relations with Communist Vietnam was supposedly going
to
improve human rights there. Actor Don Duong and Fr. Nguyen Van Ly know
otherwise.

----------------------------------------

Be sure to introduce friends and family who may be interested in these
issues to The New American by forwarding this e-mail or using the
e-mail
forwarding link on these articles.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

To subscribe, unsubscribe or to change your email address, please go
to:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Latest Message From Ron Paul (Know What Has Happened!)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:08:44 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings folks,

Worth reading, courtesy of the Militia of Montana, again.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Latest Message From Ron Paul (Know What Has Happened!)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:56:17 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: Ctzncain@aol.com
CC: hcranch@montana.net, mothrlod@avicom.net,
bkschwarz@imt.net,Cker53@aol.com, FreddieD@prodigy.net,
m26lq821@imt.net,ljgainer@3rivers.net,"mom-l@listserv.montana.com"
<mom-l@listserv.montana.com>
References: <107.1b6424ad.2b0d6b2b@aol.com>


-
Subject: Latest Message From Ron Paul (Know What Has Happened!)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:11:33 EST

The Homeland Security Monstrosity

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Congress spent just a few short hours last week voting to create
the biggest new federal bureaucracy since World War II, not that
the media or even most members of Congress paid much attention to
the process. Yet our most basic freedoms as Americans – privacy
in our homes, persons, and possessions; confidentiality in our
financial and medical affairs; openness in our conversations,
telephone, and Internet use; unfettered travel; indeed the basic
freedom not to be monitored as we go through our daily lives –
have been dramatically changed.

The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious
reorganization of the government was with the creation of the
Department of Defense in 1947. Back then, congressional hearings
on the matter lasted two years before President Truman finally
signed legislation. Even after this lengthy deliberation, however,
organizational problems with the new department lasted more than
40 years! What do we expect from a huge bureaucracy conceived
virtually overnight, by a Congress that didn’t even read the
bill that creates it? Surely more deliberation was appropriate
before establishing a giant new federal agency with 170,000
employees!

When the Homeland Security department first was conceived, some
congressional leaders and administration officials outrageously
told a credulous rank-and-file Congress that the new department
would be "budget neutral." The agency simply would be a
reorganization of existing federal employees, we were told, and
would not increase the federal budget. In fact, the agency was
touted as increasing efficiency, rather than expanding federal
power. Of course the original 32-page proposal sent over by the
White House quickly grew to 282 pages in House committees, ending
up at more than 500 pages in the final version voted on last week
– with a $3 billion price tag just for starters. The sheer
magnitude of the bill, and the technical complexity of it, makes
it impossible for anyone to understand completely. Rest assured
that the new department represents a huge increase in the size and
scope of the federal government that will mostly serve to spy on
the American people. Can anyone, even the most partisan
Republican, honestly say with a straight face that the Department
of Homeland Security does not expand the federal government?

[Image]The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers granted
to the new Homeland Security department is lengthy. Warrantless
searches, forced vaccinations of whole communities, federal
neighborhood snitch programs, federal information databases, and a
sinister new "Information Awareness Office" at the Pentagon that
uses military intelligence to spy on domestic citizens are just a
few of the troubling aspects of the new legislation. To better
understand the potential damage to our liberties, I strongly
recommend a November 14th New York Times op-ed piece by William
Safire entitled "You Are A Suspect." The article provides a
devastating critique of the new Homeland Security bureaucracy and
a chilling warning of what the agency could become. The article
can be read on my website, under the section entitled "Speeches."

November 19, 2002




Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


Ron Paul Archives








--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: NATO summit
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:47:59 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: November 21, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians tell Bush: Withdraw from NATO
and save billions in "military welfare" costs

WASHINGTON, DC -- Instead of welcoming several new countries into NATO
at the summit that begins today in Prague, President Bush should pull
the United States out of the unnecessary alliance and save taxpayers
billions of dollars in "military welfare" costs, Libertarians say.

"NATO might as well stand for Never-ending American Taxpayer
Obligation," said Geoff Neale, the national chair of the Libertarian
Party. "There's no reason that the United States should keep paying to
defend rich European nations like France, England and Germany against
a
Soviet threat that no longer exists."

Bush intends to use the two-day NATO summit as a forum to consult with
European leaders over his possible war plans on Iraq. The president
also plans to welcome into NATO several new members - including
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - which he says will "bring new life to
the trans-Atlantic alliance."

But the last thing NATO needs is new members, Libertarians say,
especially since U.S. taxpayers will be paying part of their
membership
dues.

"NATO is living proof that there's nothing quite so permanent as a
temporary government program," Neale said. "This alliance was created
after World War II to protect Western Europe from a belligerent
communist dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. Yet instead of letting NATO
quietly expire when the Soviet Union collapsed, politicians have put
it
on life support by constantly finding new missions."

For example, NATO currently has thousands of troops on peacekeeping
and
humanitarian missions in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Albania - deployments
that cost Americans an estimated $13 billion per year, Neale noted.

"Humanitarian missions should be performed by humanitarian
organizations, such as the Red Cross, not done by NATO at taxpayer
expense," Neale said. "If wealthy European nations want to spend
billions of dollars on humanitarian missions, that's their business.
But there's no reason to force Americans to pick up the tab for an
international welfare program masquerading as a military alliance."

Estimating the actual costs of NATO expansion is difficult, Neale
explained. "Perhaps sensing that the U.S. public resents subsidizing
Europe's defense, previous budget figures have been classified by NATO
bureaucrats," he said. "But military analysts estimate that in 1997,
when the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic, the U.S. share came to more than $35 billion - a sum that
could be equaled by Bush's proposed expansion.

"That's a lot to spend defending Europe from an imaginary enemy."

Earlier this week, even Bush seemed to admit that NATO was
unnecessary,
Neale noted, when he told Radio Free Europe that, "The Warsaw Pact
doesn't exist."

But apparently a sense of sympathy for the taxpayers who must fund
NATO
doesn't exist either, Libertarians say.

"Remaining in this obsolete military alliance may be a good deal for
foreign politicians, but it's a raw deal for the American public,"
Neale said. "It's time to kick European governments off the welfare
wagon, and pull the United States out of NATO."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Idaho property taxes for 2002
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:06:50 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I knew property taxes would likely go up again this year, as they
usually have a propensity to do in Idaho. And, I just got a
sweetheart form letter from the County treasurer, along with my
property taxes due, trying to explain why this year, county taxes were
growing abnormally larger than last year!

I'll admit, I have no idea how this plays out over the other counties
in the state, but this looks like a great campaign issue for 2004 for
those of us who may be participating, at least in Boundary County. It
may be a similar trend now going on in various other counties
throughout the state.

The form letter was titled: "Why is my tax bill so much higher than
last year?". Boundary County is relatively small in terms of overall
population, with the Federal government claiming ownership of about 85
percent of the land. If ownership taxation of property were fair,
which it never is, the federal government ought certainly to share in
the loss of tax revenue being shifted upon private property owners,
but of course, that is not the case.

At any rate, Boundary County only has two incorporated municipalities,
two small towns really, with Bonners Ferry (pop about 2,000) being the
county seat, and another small village of around 500 or so. At any
rate here is the increases in percentage by the taxing entities that
make up property taxes for the county:

Taxiing entity Rate Increase Tax Increase

1. County Taxes .34% $ 1.94
2. Bonners Ferry 3.47% $ ll.63
3. Moyie Springs 4.26% $ 6.79
4. Library 1.39% $ .44
5. School District 43.42% $177.85

The above figures are based upon property at $100,000 in net market
value.

As anyone can see, the tremendous increase in this case is largely a
result in a 43.42% increase in the budget of the School District.

I would like to hear from anyone in other counties how the school
districts in your county have changed markedly over the previous year,
and why that may be the case. In Boundary County, it is certainly NOT
any marked increase in the number of students. I know, this may
simply be an abnormally of building a new high school or something,
but I'd like to know if this trend is going on elsewhere in Idaho.
There may be more to this than school buildings that are usually
covered under bond levies.

Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: $25,000 Challenge Grant for the Libertarian Party
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:37:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

$25,000 Challenge Grant for the Libertarian Party

Dear Friend,

It's no secret that the LP has experienced some hard financial times
ever since the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Six weeks ago, I asked for your help in raising funds to get us out of
a big financial hole. I told you it was time to Get Real. Many of
you
responded with generous donations. One LP member responded with an
amazing degree of generosity - a $25,000 Challenge Grant! Keep reading
to find out who made the challenge, and why he decided to dig so deep.

In just six weeks, we have managed to reduce our debt by about a
third.
That's not a bad start, but it's not enough to get us back on track
just yet.

Here is some of what we are doing internally.

The Executive Committee just finished drafting the 2003 budget, and we
will be adopting a very serious, very conservative budget.

But we have found the funding to bring in a financial controller.
This
is a position we have desperately needed for some time now to bring
our
accounting practices up to professional standards.

We are on track to have our new accounting system installed and
functional by year-end.

We have also budgeted for the purchase of the "Raiser's Edge" database
system to help us, and your state affiliate, keep in better
communication with our members.

The budget is not a rosy one, based upon sky-high wishes of revenues.
It is an austere, frugal, serious, and conservative budget.

Once we have our backroom operations under control, we have plans for
important projects next year. In our surveys you have told us what
you
want, and we want the same things: more credible exposure of our
brand,
more outreach, and more electoral success.

We are committed to significantly enhancing the candidate training and
campaign support functions of the LP. We will finish our branding
project, and start effectively marketing the Libertarian message.

We must significantly increase our base of activists, candidates,
contributors and members. We will.

How much we can do in terms of our projects relies heavily on how
quickly we can get back on track financially.

The LP relies heavily on three forms of revenue: membership dues,
gifts, and monthly pledges. All are important, but the monthly pledge
program is by far our most valuable income stream.

The pledge program allows us to budget properly, and it is the least
costly program to administer. It provides the base upon which
everything else is built.

Currently less than 8% of our members make a monthly pledge, yet they
provide 45% of our membership revenue. That means they are
subsidizing
almost half our membership.
Our goal for 2003 is to have 15% of our members making a monthly
pledge.

Please join our monthly pledge program, and shoulder your fair share
in
the fight for liberty. Just a few consistent dollars a month will
give
you a party that is more visible and successful than anyone can
imagine
right now.

What I am asking you to do is to help prime the pump now, and then
sign
on to sustain your party's efforts. Whatever you can afford is very
significant in its impact on our bottom line.

Your generous donation now will let your staff concentrate on
political
action instead of fundraising. Please check your finances, and help
us
grow. You can sign-up or increase your pledge on the national web
site
at

http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=getreal2&fund=2002-0220

By signing up for a monthly pledge of $10 a month or more, your
membership will be perpetually renewed for as long as you maintain
your
pledge.

But whether you join the pledge program, or make a one-time donation,
your help is needed right now.

Remember, your membership fee alone is not enough to stop people like
Rear Admiral John Poindexter -- Homeland Security's point man for the
"Total(itarian) Information Awareness" project from turning our
government into a police state. It's time to get real … and get
serious.

Sincerely

Geoffrey Neale
National Chair
Libertarian Party

PS: You can't save the world if you can't pay the rent. Until we get
out of our financial hole, our efforts to do what we are really here
for - moving public policy in a Libertarian direction - will be
severely crimped.

Former national Chair Jim Lark has given us a most generous donation
of
$25,000, in the form of a Challenge Grant to all LP members. This was
not an easy donation for Jim to make - he's a college professor - not
a
man of great wealth. Jim had to dig deep and hard to do this.

But he believes in the LP, and in the direction we're moving. He's
put
his money where his mouth is, and I am humbled by his generosity.
Please feel free to humble me further with your generosity.

Will you accept Jim's challenge, and reach deep in your pocket to
further freedom? Please go right now to:

http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=getreal2&fund=2002-0220

And please, join the pledge program, or make your best possible one-
time donation.

Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New poll on GOP takeover...
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:17:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Rural Northwest (a news service covering north Idaho's five northern
counties) has posted an interesting new poll. Anyone can vote. The
poll concerns the GOP takeover of the federal government, is it good,
bad, etc. Right now reactions seem to be about 20 percent in the
"bad" area, and the remainder more favourable.

A good opportunity to bring in a libertarian element in this mix.

Just click on http://www.ruralnorthwest.com and submit your vote.

Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:52:53 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,<libnw@immosys.com>

Here's a different take on the FISA warrants. Perhaps someone who thinks
this guy is full of it can post a link to the actual decision? And maybe
even point out (or quote excerpts) which show that all the supposed dangers
of some bureaucrat declaring that someone is a "foreign agent" means that
their 4th amendment rights get trashed?

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021126-6078727.htm

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:36:37 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...

> Here's a different take on the FISA warrants. Perhaps someone who thinks
> this guy is full of it can post a link to the actual decision? And maybe
> even point out (or quote excerpts) which show that all the supposed
dangers
> of some bureaucrat declaring that someone is a "foreign agent" means that
> their 4th amendment rights get trashed?
> http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021126-6078727.htm

I don't have anything really handy right now, but after reading the
article, much of this sounds like it might very well become relative
to abuse by agents and authorities within federal law enforcement
using a wide brush to describe what constitutes possible terrorism
intentions.

Historically the US government tended to look the other way,
particularly when American citizens were supporting and sponsoring
terrorism elsewhere. I can go back here to the late 1960s in a small
town called Bend, Oregon where I grew up. One of my best friends was
of Irish decent, and he informed me later on after we joined the Navy
together and ended up on the same ship, that his mother routinely sent
cheques to support the IRA in the struggle for Independence from
Britain.

I was rather surprised, and asked him if he didn't find something
wrong with that? He told me, don't worry about it, a lot of people in
the American Irish community support that cause routinely as a matter
of principle and loyalty.

Problem is here, is that Great Britain of course is one of America's
chief allies, and the IRA were conducting terrorist attacks upon
British civilians as well as police and military. US intelligence has
known that this has been occurring for decades, and the British
government has made objection to not cracking down on such support for
terrorism.

Another problem, and a real one here is exactly this question of
loyalty. Many countries, the Philippines being one, does not remove
citizenship from one of its people who assume citizenship in another
host country. The US government has upheld this principle of dual
citizenship on the basis that no one should be denied rights and
privileges incumbent from their national origin.

So now if "loyalty" becomes an issue in which 4th amendment rights are
tenable and enforceable, then there is a contradiction in terms, as in
the case of dual citizenship, where loyalties might perhaps be split
upon recognizing dual citizenship and rights of certain citizens to
have a conflict of loyalties. I am not sure how this might apply in
such cases of many islamic states who's citizens have migrated to the
US and taken on US citizenship. If such states still give legal
citizenship standing to such nationals, and the US government
recognizes it, then how can this become a principle for curtailment of
4th Amendment rights?

And, does 4th Amendment rights end, even when US citizens themselves
profess no loyalty to the present US government? There are perhaps
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of such US citizens who fall
into this category. As I understand it, even Jehovah's Witnessness
refuse to pledge allegiance to the national government, and other
religious sects have similar views regarding civil government. So even
on religious grounds, thousands and thousands of Americans can fall
into such a category and ostensibly lose their 4th Amendment rights
accordingly, and they aren't even given the propensity to support
terrorist causes.

I'm rather certain that those who crafted this legislation never
intended for it to go very much beyond the ideal of tracking down
planned terrorist acts and circumventing them before they were carried
out, or tracking down terrorists themselves. But injecting this
definition of "loyalty" becoming a criteria is problematic, since it
not only violates the 4th Amendment, but the First Amendment and
several others. In my judgement anyway, it is right and proper for any
American citizen to at any time, and for any reason, to
conscientiously refuse to be loyal to the present government, or any
government for that matter. This should not be a criteria for the
government to refuse or take away the rights of such an individual.

It is also the right of any individual to freely support any
government anywhere of his or her own choosing, but that's a separate
issue, and probably ought to be addressed as such.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:52:14 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 20:36 11/26/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...
>
> > Here's a different take on the FISA warrants. Perhaps someone who
thinks
> > this guy is full of it can post a link to the actual decision? And
maybe
> > even point out (or quote excerpts) which show that all the supposed
dangers
> > of some bureaucrat declaring that someone is a "foreign agent" means
that
> > their 4th amendment rights get trashed?
> > http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021126-6078727.htm
>
>I don't have anything really handy right now, but after reading the
>article, much of this sounds like it might very well become relative
>to abuse by agents and authorities within federal law enforcement
>using a wide brush to describe what constitutes possible terrorism
>intentions.

Sure, "agents and authorities" will try to use a wide brush. However, the
point of the article was that they've still got to get it past a
judge. Sometimes they will (ala Waco), and sometimes they won't. If it
can be abused, sooner or later it will be abused. I don't think that's the
real question, which breaks down to: "Is this the "hook" that can be used
by a corrupt administration to overthrow our republican form of
government?" It appears that the answer is clearly "no". Now, we can also
examine another question, namely: "Is this an appropriate tradeoff of
additional danger of abuse vs. additional safety through better
investigatory options?" You and I might think the answer is "no", but it's
quite clear to me that reasonable people could (reasonably) disagree.

>So now if "loyalty" becomes an issue in which 4th amendment rights are
>tenable and enforceable, then there is a contradiction in terms, as in
>the case of dual citizenship, where loyalties might perhaps be split
>upon recognizing dual citizenship and rights of certain citizens to
>have a conflict of loyalties. I am not sure how this might apply in
>such cases of many islamic states who's citizens have migrated to the
>US and taken on US citizenship. If such states still give legal
>citizenship standing to such nationals, and the US government
>recognizes it, then how can this become a principle for curtailment of
>4th Amendment rights?

Does the US now recognize "dual citizenship" for naturalized citizens? I
haven't ever actually been to a naturalization ceremony, but I thought that
naturalized citizens had to swear that they were renouncing all loyalties
to any other nation. I thought that "dual citizenship" was for people like
military dependents born in Germany. These people would be US citizens
because their parents were US citizens and they would be German because
they were born in Germany. Are you claiming that "dual citizenship"
actually applies to other situations? I was born of US citizens in
Taiwan. So far as I know, Taiwan never recognized me as anything but a US
citizen (fortunately, else I would have had to spend a couple of years in
their military.)

In any case, a person who has become a citizen and is suspected of engaging
in espionage will then be treated by the judge issuing the FISA search
warrant the same way as someone who has been a citizen all their
lives. The judge will be demanding evidence (beyond the fact that the
"subject" went to the same grade-school as some al Qaeda mucky-muck) that
the citizen is an agent of a foreign power and that the situation meets the
other requirements for invoking FISA.

Your other comments about "loyalty" of people being in question (including
comments about people who conscientiously refuse to "pledge allegiance" to
any government) are beside the point. Joe FBI doesn't get to go to the
judge and say "John Smith won't pledge allegiance, so we want to
investigate him as a Foreign Intelligence Agent." Instead, Joe FBI has to
show probable cause that "John Smith" is actually acting as an agent of a
foreign power.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:12:16 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Does the US now recognize "dual citizenship" for naturalized citizens?

In short, yes the courts have decided so, and it still holds. Citizens who
enjoy benefits as a result of their birth in another jurisdiction, cannot be
deprived of such benefits of citizenship. On the other hand, some foreign
jurisdictions do nullify citizenship to those who swear allegiance to
another state, but not all do. The Philippines for one, does not. Even
American "naturalized" citizens can come back to the Philippines even after
serving for 20 or 30 years in the US military as US citizens, and still own
land here. It is a requirement under the Philippine constitution, that
private property owners MUST be Philippine citizens. They are dual citizens,
as the US government recognizes them as US citizens as well.

> I
> haven't ever actually been to a naturalization ceremony, but I thought
that
> naturalized citizens had to swear that they were renouncing all loyalties
> to any other nation. I thought that "dual citizenship" was for people
like
> military dependents born in Germany.

There may be a contradiction in the "oath", but US courts have upheld that
such people can not be deprived of citizenship and the benefits afforded to
such people, when they become naturalized US citizens. In my previous
marriage, my three children held both Philippine and US passports. Such was
perfectly legal under both US and Philippine law.

If anything, perhaps the "oath" should change to reflect the current legal
code in the US. I attended my ex-wife's naturalization ceremony a few years
ago -- yes, she took that oath, and I reflected upon at the time just how
arrogant that oath really is. US courts seem to be at variance with what
the State Department seems to believe is contrary to such law. US law really
does in practice recognize dual citizenship when foreign nations continue to
grant such citizenship regardless of accepting the terms for US citizenship.
Canada is another great example of this. You can move to Canada and apply
for what they call "Landed Immigrant" status, which by virtue of that grants
you all the rights and privileges as a Canadian citizen, and at the same
time you would be recognized under US law as a US citizen. It happens all
the time. In Canada, based upon that, you can obtain a Canadian passport,
travel abroad as a Canadian citizen, and still hold a US passport legally.

Where the courts have come down on such matters is interesting, and it
largely supports libertarian principles regarding legal rights that ought
not to be infringed upon. It has been determined that the US government has
no moral right to deprive anyone of rights, benefits and privileges they
might enjoy by virtue of their citizenship elsewhere either by birth, or
immigration status under foreign immigration laws. Canadian immigration and
recognition of citizenship laws are far different than they are in the US.
You can multiply that a couple hundred times when you consider all of the
other nations on the planet where individuals might have legally acquired US
citizenship.

> These people would be US citizens
> because their parents were US citizens and they would be German because
> they were born in Germany. Are you claiming that "dual citizenship"
> actually applies to other situations?

Yes I am. Read my above. If you or I applied for "Landed Immigrant" status
in Canada, and it was granted, you would be a dual national under both
Canadian and US law.

> I was born of US citizens in
> Taiwan. So far as I know, Taiwan never recognized me as anything but a US
> citizen (fortunately, else I would have had to spend a couple of years in
> their military.)

That's not hard to explain. Taiwan had different criteria for determining
who would be recognized as citizens. Every country defines such things very
differently. Japan is a classic example, and Taiwan probably follows very
closely to this, even Koreans today who have lived and worked in Japan for
decades, still are deprived of Japanese citizenship. So what else is new?
All that means is that Japan defines citizenship on racial, ethnic criteria
on whether or not you are ethnically Japanese. Remember Fujimori, the
ex-President of Peru, who was granted citizenship in Japan solely on the
fact that he was of Japanese extraction? His Japanese (language ability)
probably isn't that great either, as I doubt he could even read the Conji or
understand very much of the Spoken Japanese language. I might be wrong on
the later, but on the former I would place my bets.

> In any case, a person who has become a citizen and is suspected of
engaging
> in espionage will then be treated by the judge issuing the FISA search
> warrant the same way as someone who has been a citizen all their
> lives.

Maybe, maybe not. How do YOU know how a judge might decide such things?

> The judge will be demanding evidence (beyond the fact that the
> "subject" went to the same grade-school as some al Qaeda mucky-muck) that
> the citizen is an agent of a foreign power and that the situation meets
the
> other requirements for invoking FISA.

As far as the US government is concerned, all of this is subject to court
challenge, and YOU are assuming a judge might even uphold FISA as legal!
Any judge can throw this shit out, and declare it illegal under the US
Constitution if he/she so chooses. This is far too new to make such
sweeping judgements. It's still ripe for a court challenge, and YOU don't
really know, do you, how it will stand as it moves throughout the court
system? There are certainly a lot of court precedents to suggest that
depriving an individual from participating in legal benefits and privileges
under another jurisdiction should be denied. So far at least, the level of
support given by the courts have upheld such as not contrary to being a US
naturalized citizen, that is, until September 11th, 2001. Maybe that's a
good reason to suspect that FISA might be contrary to recognized US law
regarding the rights and privileges of dual nationals and citizenship. This
will all take considerable time to work its way through the justice system.

> Your other comments about "loyalty" of people being in question (including
> comments about people who conscientiously refuse to "pledge allegiance" to
> any government) are beside the point. Joe FBI doesn't get to go to the
> judge and say "John Smith won't pledge allegiance, so we want to
> investigate him as a Foreign Intelligence Agent."

Maybe not all the time, but I could imagine how such might come up in the
course of time when Joe FBI finds it necessary to call into question someone
who might become a party to such an investigation. And, it already has come
down to that, hasn't it, at least in some cases of questioning US citizens
and the company they keep? Such as being a member of a Mosque? Your friends
and acquaintances?

> Instead, Joe FBI has to
> show probable cause that "John Smith" is actually acting as an agent of a
> foreign power.

And, that may be, and probably will be, if objective reasoning is allowed to
exist, the reason why it will be thrown out of court as prejudicial and a
denial of rights and privileges of recognized citizens in other
jurisdictions and exercising their own free will insofar as "loyalty" is the
issue. This thing about "loyalty" seems to be your major hang up. There is
one hell of a lot about this present regime in office that I find myself NOT
supporting in any fashion whatsoever. No, I don't work for any other foreign
jurisdiction, I just don't support THIS government currently in power, nor
do I support its foreign and domestic policies either. I'm not a dual
national, or dual citizen anywhere.

So, why do you suppose someone who might enjoy citizenship status as a dual
citizen in another jurisdiction would be any more of a problem to the
current regime in power, than, say, I might be?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:30:13 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank! And a Happy Thanksgiving to all!

For those joining the discussion late, the original message that kicked
this off was a pointer to this article:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021126-6078727.htm

Frank wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > I
> > haven't ever actually been to a naturalization ceremony, but I thought
>that
> > naturalized citizens had to swear that they were renouncing all
loyalties
> > to any other nation. I thought that "dual citizenship" was for people
>like
> > military dependents born in Germany.
>
>There may be a contradiction in the "oath", but US courts have upheld that
>such people can not be deprived of citizenship and the benefits afforded to
>such people, when they become naturalized US citizens. In my previous
>marriage, my three children held both Philippine and US passports. Such
was
>perfectly legal under both US and Philippine law.
>
>If anything, perhaps the "oath" should change to reflect the current legal
>code in the US. I attended my ex-wife's naturalization ceremony a few
years
>ago -- yes, she took that oath, and I reflected upon at the time just how
>arrogant that oath really is.

I don't think that oath is arrogant at all. Changing your citizenship is
not like changing your long distance company. Someone are asking to become
part of a nation--creating obligations (such as they may be) to protect
that person and you think that it's "arrogant" to require something in
return? Particularly when that something is a loyalty to the nation that
the person is becoming a citizen of? Sure, it might be nice to have a more
anarchist society where this sort of thing simply doesn't matter, but until
most of the world is a libertarian society (and the remainder is so
technologically backward that it is irrelevant) nations really can't afford
this. I suppose an "anarchist" could simply take the oath falsely--but
that would be fraud.

> US courts seem to be at variance with what
>the State Department seems to believe is contrary to such law. US law
really
>does in practice recognize dual citizenship when foreign nations continue
to
>grant such citizenship regardless of accepting the terms for US
citizenship.
> Canada is another great example of this. You can move to Canada and
apply
>for what they call "Landed Immigrant" status, which by virtue of that
grants
>you all the rights and privileges as a Canadian citizen, and at the same
>time you would be recognized under US law as a US citizen. It happens all
>the time. In Canada, based upon that, you can obtain a Canadian passport,
>travel abroad as a Canadian citizen, and still hold a US passport legally.

And can these "Landed Immigrants" vote in Canada (under Canadian
law)? Under US law, can these "dual citizens" hold an "office of trust and
profit" in those countries, or join their military?

>Where the courts have come down on such matters is interesting, and it
>largely supports libertarian principles regarding legal rights that ought
>not to be infringed upon. It has been determined that the US government
has
>no moral right to deprive anyone of rights, benefits and privileges they
>might enjoy by virtue of their citizenship elsewhere either by birth, or
>immigration status under foreign immigration laws. Canadian immigration and
>recognition of citizenship laws are far different than they are in the US.
>You can multiply that a couple hundred times when you consider all of the
>other nations on the planet where individuals might have legally acquired
US
>citizenship.
>
> > In any case, a person who has become a citizen and is suspected of
>engaging
> > in espionage will then be treated by the judge issuing the FISA search
> > warrant the same way as someone who has been a citizen all their
> > lives.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. How do YOU know how a judge might decide such things?

Obviously, there are going to be careless, uncaring, rubber-stamp and
"pro-law-enforcement" judges who will be prone rule based on their
"feelings" rather than on the law. However, according to the Wash. Times
article, before a judge issues a FISA warrant, they are supposed to
determine that the person being investigated is 1) acting as an agent of a
foreign power (including an international terrorist group), 2) the
activities involve or may involve espionage or sabotage or international
terrorism in ways that are violations of US law, 3) the use of normal
techniques would be futile, and 4) procedures have been established to
minimize privacy intrusions consistent with the purpose of the
surveillance. Of course, if a judge rubber-stamps a request coming into
FISA, that's hardly any different than a judge rubber-stamping any other
kind of warrant for a normal criminal investigation.

> > The judge will be demanding evidence (beyond the fact that the
> > "subject" went to the same grade-school as some al Qaeda mucky-muck)
that
> > the citizen is an agent of a foreign power and that the situation meets
>the
> > other requirements for invoking FISA.
>
>As far as the US government is concerned, all of this is subject to court
>challenge, and YOU are assuming a judge might even uphold FISA as legal!
>Any judge can throw this shit out, and declare it illegal under the US
>Constitution if he/she so chooses.

Actually, it's been challenged and upheld--at least at the Circuit Court
level. It might have even gone to the Supreme Court and been upheld. If
some judge throws it out (other than because they determined that facts of
the case didn't fit the FISA law), then that judge is going to get stomped
on royally on appeal.

> > Your other comments about "loyalty" of people being in question
(including
> > comments about people who conscientiously refuse to "pledge allegiance"
to
> > any government) are beside the point. Joe FBI doesn't get to go to the
> > judge and say "John Smith won't pledge allegiance, so we want to
> > investigate him as a Foreign Intelligence Agent."
>
>Maybe not all the time, but I could imagine how such might come up in the
>course of time when Joe FBI finds it necessary to call into question
someone
>who might become a party to such an investigation. And, it already has
come
>down to that, hasn't it, at least in some cases of questioning US citizens
>and the company they keep? Such as being a member of a Mosque? Your friends
>and acquaintances?

Certainly anything can be used as evidence. The question is going to be
whether there's enough piled up in front of the judge for him to grant the
warrant. If Joe FBI only has one or two of these sorts of things (all of
which could easily have innocuous explanations), then I would expect that
most judges would tell him to get lost. (In fact, most US attorneys would
tell him to get lost--in other words, it's not even going to get in front
of the judge.) On the other hand, if there are some of these as "icing on
the cake" with a person who has associated with known terrorists (or
foreign agents) and taken suspicious trips to places like Afghanistan or
Pakistan and had some suspicious "earnings" which approximately correspond
to mysterious "payments" by the known terrorist associate, then yes, they
will be considered.

> > Instead, Joe FBI has to
> > show probable cause that "John Smith" is actually acting as an agent of
a
> > foreign power.
>
>And, that may be, and probably will be, if objective reasoning is allowed
to
>exist, the reason why it will be thrown out of court as prejudicial and a
>denial of rights and privileges of recognized citizens in other
>jurisdictions and exercising their own free will insofar as "loyalty" is
the
>issue. This thing about "loyalty" seems to be your major hang up. There
is
>one hell of a lot about this present regime in office that I find myself
NOT
>supporting in any fashion whatsoever. No, I don't work for any other
foreign
>jurisdiction, I just don't support THIS government currently in power, nor
>do I support its foreign and domestic policies either. I'm not a dual
>national, or dual citizen anywhere.

Actually Frank, you are the one who raised the "thing about loyalty" and
you're the one who seems to have the "hang up" about it. So far as I know,
there is nothing in the FISA, nothing that Bruce Fein (the Wash. Times
writer), and nothing that I have said to indicate that a subjective
evaluation of where someone's "loyalty" lay had much of anything to do with
whether FISA would be applied. The judge is supposed to have probable
cause to believe that someone is actually working with a foreign power to
commit acts of espionage, sabotage or terrorism. That doesn't include any
old Tom, Dick, or Harry who says they "don't support US government policy"
or any old Achmed, Mustafa or Muhammed who is still an active member of the
Baath party in Iraq.

>So, why do you suppose someone who might enjoy citizenship status as a dual
>citizen in another jurisdiction would be any more of a problem to the
>current regime in power, than, say, I might be?

What makes you think I hold that opinion?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:55:27 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>It is a requirement under the Philippine constitution, that
>private property owners MUST be Philippine citizens. They are dual
citizens,
>as the US government recognizes them as US citizens as well.

No wonder the Philippine economy can't seem to grow--especially when
compared to places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

I have to say Frank, that this brings up something that's rather
strange. You think that it's "arrogant" for the US to administer an a
naturalized citizen oath to renounce all loyalty to any other nation, yet
it doesn't seem to bother you in the least that another country doesn't
allow non-citizens to exercise one of the most fundamental rights--namely,
to own property.

If the US passed such a law (perhaps with current owners "grandfathered
in"), I'd be shocked if you weren't screaming and raging about the
"arrogance", "unfairness", "imperialism", and what not of the new law. My
take on the whole thing (in either the US or the Philippines) is that it
would be within the "right" or "power" of the state to do such a thing
(provided, in the US, at least, that such a thing is constitutional), but
that it would be monumentally economically *STUPID*!

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Intelligence (FISA) Warrants.
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:19:16 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote, in part:
> >It is a requirement under the Philippine constitution, that
> >private property owners MUST be Philippine citizens. They are dual
citizens,
> >as the US government recognizes them as US citizens as well.

You replied:
> No wonder the Philippine economy can't seem to grow--especially when
> compared to places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Very true. Part of the reason for this paranoia is the long colonial rule
(around 400 years or so) by the Spanish, Americans and Japanese, placing
filipinos as second class citizens in their own country. The "filipino only"
land requirement is a reaction to this. Similar requirements also exist in
other former colonial possessions, so it isn't unique exactly to the
Philippines. But again, you are correct, this has stifled economic growth
and foreign capital investment in the country for several decades. Some of
that is now changing, and the Philippine economy is showing a steady growth
rate of 3.5% of GDP this year, which is better than many in SE Asia. By
contrast, China, which is removing even more economic barriers is growing
much faster than all of east Asia combined, including Japan and South Korea.

I suspect that the citizenship land owner requirement will be changed in due
course, and it is being discussed in the legislature about a change to the
Constitution, the national charter. It's still a hotly debated topic
however. Also, ASEAN membership is forcing a lot of changes here as well by
lowering tarrifs and freeing up trade across the board. Taiwan (although not
a member of ASEAN has invested heavily in this region of central Luzon. ACER
COMPUTERS has a large factory about an hour away from here, and several more
large companies from Taiwan are here now. Ford has a vigorous truck
assembly plant here, and exports the vehicles throughout ASEAN at reduced
tarrifs. As I said, things are starting to change here and it is showing
slowly.

> I have to say Frank, that this brings up something that's rather
> strange. You think that it's "arrogant" for the US to administer an a
> naturalized citizen oath to renounce all loyalty to any other nation, yet
> it doesn't seem to bother you in the least that another country doesn't
> allow non-citizens to exercise one of the most fundamental rights--namely,
> to own property.

It's a trade off Lowell. I don't obviously like the prohibition of
non-filipinos for owning land, although if you are married to a filipino you
can still buy it anyway, and control it, as many retired Americans here do
all the time, or operate business here. The trade off is easy, since I pay
no taxes here, except rarely for a visa renewal or something like that, or
VAT taxes on certain things such as my internet bill. There is far greater
social freedom that exists here, and local law enforcement never seem to get
in your face as they do everyday in America for such things as a broken tail
light, or not having a seat belt straping you in. Part of that is of course
because the police are so underfunded, and so police usually respond to only
what is reported to them, rather than being proactive most of the time.
Again, there are trade offs in all of this.

> If the US passed such a law (perhaps with current owners "grandfathered
> in"), I'd be shocked if you weren't screaming and raging about the
> "arrogance", "unfairness", "imperialism", and what not of the new law.

No. Mainly because this is NOT my country, and I leave their politics to the
filipinos to decide their own destiny in their own way. It would be
arrogant and wrong for me to tell filipinos how to run their own country, as
the US government does all of the time around the world. That's what *I*
complain about. I read the message perportedly written by Osama bin Laden
today that was posted here by David Lawler. I don't agree with the forced
*Islamic* shit, but I believe that Osama was pretty much on target in terms
of discussing US foreign and military policies in third world and Islamic
states. He's going to get far more mileage out of that than will feable US
propaganda efforts trying to justify what we have been doing for the last
five decades.

> My
> take on the whole thing (in either the US or the Philippines) is that it
> would be within the "right" or "power" of the state to do such a thing
> (provided, in the US, at least, that such a thing is constitutional), but
> that it would be monumentally economically *STUPID*!

I can't argue with you here, since I am in pretty solid agreement with this.
Although it is "their own" stupid mistake to make, and not ours. The
Philippine economy has suffered for two main reasons: (1) an horrendously
high population growth rate, and not enough productive jobs to absorb such
an increase in population, and (2) Economic and property ownership issues
that restrict and confound foreign investment opportunities that might
otherwise come here to avail themselves of a low-cost labour market, and
reasonably education population. Of course, it might be argued that if the
second item were addressed, then the capital increases in investment might
certainly meet the other problems of the growing population. A funny thing
is that as the income level increases, birth rates statistically go down, so
both conditions might be met by simply opening up property ownership and
allowing foreign corporate interests the same rights as filipino citizens
themselves.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Homeland Defense Taxes State Budgets
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:42:01 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings everyone!

A great AP release that was made available to me earlier, courtesy of the
Militia of Montana.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Homeland Defense Taxes State Budgets
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:47 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

"CIA, FBI, Immigration, Secret Service, National Security Agency, all these
people
should be sharing data," said Charlie Weaver, Minnesota's commissioner of
public safety,"
so when I pull over John Doe and type in his name, what I get is
meaningful."

Homeland Defense Taxes State Budgets

By ROBERT TANNER,
AP National Writer
November 23, 2002, 7:57 PM EST

DANA POINT, Calif. -- States are in a bind when it comes to homeland
defense: Nearly
every step needed to increase safety requires more cash, and nearly every
state is facing a
fiscal crisis.

The three-day Republican Governors Association conference at this oceanside
resort was
largely devoted to celebrating the GOP's successes, but the governors also
made pointed
demands for faster and better federal support for law enforcement and public
health
needs.

Republican governors say they're looking to the Bush administration for
federal help, and
soon. But coming from the same political party as the president only goes so
far.

"Homeland security is basically hometown security," Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt
said at a
weekend gathering of GOP governors.

Top Bush administration officials assured them of cash and guidance -- but
states and
cities still would have to do much of the work.

"I see what the governors are doing. I see what the mayors are doing," said
Homeland
Security Director Tom Ridge. "We are far safer than we were on Sept. 11."

The GOP governors and governors-elect heard from Ridge, former New York
Mayor
Rudy Giuliani, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and
Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Outgoing Kansas Gov. Bill Graves said his state's projected budget shortfall
of $310
million is the worst Kansas has ever recorded and has jeopardized education
and social
services.

"And now we've now got this new kid on the block, this new priority:
homeland security,"
said Graves, who was prevented by term limits from running again. "It simply
creates one
more huge pressure point."

The demands run across all facets of government: police, fire and other
first responders;
public health agencies; social services; utilities.

The states' most pressing needs, governors agreed, centered on communication
and
information.

The word of the weekend was "interoperability" -- a catchphrase for creating
a better
communication network for those that respond to an attack, within a state
and across state
lines. It also means better sharing of information, from local to state to
federal agencies.

"CIA, FBI, Immigration, Secret Service, National Security Agency, all these
people
should be sharing data," said Charlie Weaver, Minnesota's commissioner of
public safety,"
so when I pull over John Doe and type in his name, what I get is
meaningful."

Many pointed to the deaths during the weeks of investigation into the sniper
shootings in
the Washington area as an example of how things can go wrong in terms of
communication and information-sharing.

"Ultimately, we were lucky. But so many clues were missed along the way,"
said John
Thomasian, director of the National Governors Association's Center for Best
Practices.
"You can spot where it could have been solved even faster."

Outgoing Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating -- whose state faces a budget shortfall
of more
than $650 million next year -- said the money sent from Washington so far
doesn't allow
states to buy the equipment they need for "interoperable" systems. "That's
our No. 1
challenge," he said.

South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow, who heads to Washington as a congressman in
January,
said the federal government needs to get smallpox vaccines out to the states
immediately,
and not wait for an attack.

Giuliani, the only speaker to get a standing ovation, said each governor
must remember
and follow through on one thing: preparation. "We will be held accountable
if we don't get
it solved before another incident occurs."

Giuliani also said the governors must help their states balance
contradictory needs --
vigilance and preparation on one hand while avoiding paralysis and fear on
the other.

"You have to relentlessly focus over the next four years. And then you have
to be effective
enough leaders to say to people, 'relax,'" he told them.

"We're all going to die, and most likely it's not going to be by
terrorists," Giuliani said.
"Everyone in your state has a greater risk of being killed by a drunk driver
than by a
terrorist. But they don't stop driving."

Still, those are statistics. And the leaders at the conference seemed
convinced the
likelihood of another attack was high.

"We'll never have the perfect system," said Ridge, who spoke of the nation's
"enduring
vulnerability" to international terrorism. "And they only have to get it
right every once in a
while."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-governors-homeland-security1124nov23,0,7729856.story



--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Saddamed if We Do,Saddamed if We Don't
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:57:50 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I'm reposting it here because I find this asks a lot of questions that
frankly aren't being asked in mainstream media channels, or virtually
anywhere else these days in America.

Admittedly, all of this suggests a large measure of hypothetical
probability, some of which I personally disagree with, but also there are
some questions that surround this issue, as to why it has now become such an
issue at all, and why we are faced with this problem.

This comes after decades of a failed US foreign policy that has brought us
to this place in our own history. In that sense, I can agree with this
author, that in either case, we may likely be screwed, and this course is
not going to be the cake walk as advertised by the Shrub Regime;s<tm>
propaganda, and indeed, it may alter the course of history as we have
experienced it for so long.

This too comes courtesy of the Militia of Montana.

Read and enjoy.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Saddamed if We Do,Saddamed if We Don't
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:01:39 -0700
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Saddamed if We Do,
Saddamed if We Don't

by Edgar J. Steele

November 22, 2002

"What is truth? No wonder jesting Pilate turned away.
The truth, it has a thousand faces -- show only one of them,
and the whole truth flies away! But how to show the whole?
That's the question..."
--- Thomas Wolfe, "You Can't Go Home Again," Ch. 27 (1934)

Executive summary: If we attack Iraq, we're screwed. If we don't attack
Iraq, we're screwed. Therefore, we're screwed.

If I remember correctly from my Philosophy 101 course, taken at the
University of Washington in 1964, that is what is known as a logical
syllogism. Reaching an inescapable conclusion from exhaustive premises.
Pure logic in action.

Of course, the secret in conclusion management is in picking your premises.
That's why we're even in the Middle East, kicking various shades of Arab
butt around. "Because they're jealous of our freedom," says the man from
Planet Bush. That's a premise. Because they hit us in the WTCster.
That's another premise.

Problem is, hardly anybody ever challenges premises, so conclusions go down
like spilt antifreeze being lapped up by a cat. Tastes good, so it must be
good for us. Right. Pure logic in action. That's what passes for truth
these days. Or part of it, anyway.

Today, let's examine both "we're screwed" premises. There already is
sufficient chaff and confetti flying around the Web concerning the faulty
premises for waging war in the first place.

Premise #1: If (when, actually) we wade into Baghdad, we will end up being
screwed.
Saddam cannot allow himself to be disarmed because he will be overthrown
and killed by his domestic enemies, if not his neighbors (can you say
"Israel," boys and girls?). The moment he resists, America launches. Even
if he fools the weapons inspectors, administration officials have already
indicated their willingness to go in after him, anyway.

Saddam is now boxed into a corner and can be expected to respond
rapaciously, as any cornered animal with claws would. The only question is
when. City warfare is wicked stuff (rent and see "Blackhawk Down" for a
small taste) and quite different from tanks in the open sands. The body
bags coming home will be impressive because this time Saddam knows that we
won't stop until we have his head on a stick.

Count on this one being a dirty war, too, with Saddam actually using his
biological, chemical and dirty nuclear weapons (don't be naive and think he
doesn't have them). Think body bags by the shipload.

And, when it's over, there will be several other countries nearby that
won't be jockeying to be America's buddy. Each filled with millions of
jihadists of the first order. By then, America will have eclipsed Israel
in their eyes. Look at Israel and the way its people live, because it will
become just like that anywhere that America has a presence. Including Des
Moines.

Screwed, as I said earlier.

Premise #2: Maybe, by some miracle, we won't invade Iraq (who knows, maybe
they'll catch Bush in that cubby off the Oval Office with Congolisa on her
knees - now, there's an image). Doesn't matter, because we'll be just as
screwed as Bush then, too. We already are, in view of how much water we
have been carrying for Israel.

Left in power, Saddam truly becomes the boogeyman of the burning sands,
with bazookas and missiles just a drippin' off of him and a launch button
for every finger of his hands...

The Arab world then will unite behind their only leader to have faced down
the Zionist-American axis. Israel will be turned into that giant,
self-illuminated glass parking lot about which Dr. William Pierce always
fantasized. America will have to retaliate and, before you know it...we're
screwed. Global thermonuclear exchanges have that sort of effect.

The splintering of the Arab countries is what always has saved us in the
past. However, now we are providing compelling reasons for them to unite.
Reasons well beyond those previously provided by Israel, the country that
started all of this in the first place.

Bush is getting record numbers of Americans to unite (against him and his
insane policies, both foreign and domestic), so it isn't hard to understand
how he is managing to bring all the Arab sheikhdoms together. And it is
way too late to do a single thing about it; just ask the Afghanis.
Therefore, we're screwed. Saddamed if we do and Saddamed if we don't.

But, Americans don't want to consider these things. There is still beer in
the supermarkets and football games on TV, after all. Only some of our
friends are out of work so far.

Meet Toed the cat. So called, because of the seven toes on each of his
front feet. Toed lives with us. Or...is it that we live with him? A matter
of perspective, I suppose.

Toed wants it to be summer again. In fact, so do I. Toed races to the front
door anytime someone walks through the living room, his signal that we are
to open the door so that he might go out. Then he stands there and
tentatively sniffs at the chill mountain air, only to back away, right back
into the house. We go through this ritual many times each day this time of
year.

I imagine that he doesn't understand why we, who have such power over light
and darkness and can make it as balmy as spring inside the house, can't do
the same for him outside.

It's hard to find mice in six feet of snow.

It seems as though all of America is like Toed these days. With the arrival
of the cold reality of a serious recession and its concomitant
politically-driven war, we want it to be spring again...to stroll through
fields of mounding stock options, kicking up our heels in Enron-like
profits. Instead, we stare with disbelief at every dip in the Dow, vainly
expecting each following day to bring sunshine, buttercups and stock splits.

Everything will be just wonderful once we march into Baghdad and the Iraqis
hand over Saddam for the show trial of the century. Right. In your dreams.

Forget it. We're screwed.

New America. An idea whose time has come.

-ed

"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus

Copyright C Edgar J. Steele, 2002

Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate
among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet
sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.
Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

On-Line link to this article in HTML format:
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/saddamed.htm

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A Declaration of War?
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:52:04 -0900
From: "David G. Lawler" <ltxdgl@pobox.mtaonline.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Gentlemen,

I don't know it looks like a declaration of war to me. I do mean a
declaration from the nation of Islam not just from Bin Laden.

Sincerely,
David G. Lawler

Full Text: Bin Laden's 'Letter to America'
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, "Permission to
fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought
against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give
them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]
"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve,
fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g.
Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the
plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]
Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis
are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some
of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others
which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and
warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him.
While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions
directed at the Americans:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer
is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80
years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support,
to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing
with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and
devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest
crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no
need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The
creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person
whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must
pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired
of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to
Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with
them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the
most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of
Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the
inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah
that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon
them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine
in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and
Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon
them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be
raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah
(peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between
them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must
know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed
alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against
us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish
aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our
countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic
Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a
large prison of fear and subdual.
(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a
paltry price.
(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of
Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered
limbs of their own people.
(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a
necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to
regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate
from out fight against you.
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you
international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the
biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases
throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to
protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your
pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It
is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result
of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your
people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their
eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and
under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa
mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa
mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your
oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and
intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not
await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way
rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a
century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression
against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they
did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the
land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American
people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free
will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the
American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for
the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of
their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of
the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse
the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes
that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in
Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the
fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to
Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the
American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are
the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish,
through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very
same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their
women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes
committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take
revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back.
Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to
destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we
have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our
civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of
peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles,
so we are addressing it using the language it understands.
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling
you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating
partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the
Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all
the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the
religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is
the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them -
peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous
religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of
manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion
of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting
them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the
religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue
and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's
Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and
agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people,
without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and
unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The
Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone
to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies,
immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity;
to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants,
gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have
become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you
are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you
the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization
witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in
its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and
desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure
nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You
flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for
Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the
creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them
that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern
their lives?
(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all
the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a
result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken
control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your
media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants
and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin
warned you against.
(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of
intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even
though your nation is the largest consumer of them.
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them
to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this
abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face
of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the
official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account,
other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no
punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down
in history and remembered by nations?
(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies
practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the
criminals becoming rich.
(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or
advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to
serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.
You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms,
directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are
established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and
freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.
(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a
nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead
and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic
American Invention.
(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more
than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto
agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies
and*industries.
(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in
their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts.
Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.
(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that
you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in
history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your
interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though
Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression,
tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?
(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in
both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles.
All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for
the others.
(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for
white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your
monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the
'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When
the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the
election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to
attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new
lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!
(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass
destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which
you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent
to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to
defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or
keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take
military action against them.
(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of
International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else
who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN
resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.
(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for -
you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history
will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and
the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia,
Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape.
It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in
which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs
were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down
on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the
agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi
fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and
thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands
of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for
anyone remotely suspicious.
(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry
of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those
countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished
when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the
same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured
thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason,
court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher
laws.
What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its
values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value
of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"
(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves
- and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without
principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are
something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself
must adhere to.
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of
the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease
supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern
Philippines.
(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We
desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to
send you back as cargo in coffins.
(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in
our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education.
Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of
mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft
and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews
because this will result in more disasters for you.
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with
the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on
Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its
Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you
should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will
punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them
and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their
(believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is
All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]
The Nation of honour and respect:
"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger
(Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]
"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will
be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]
The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire
life:
"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they
are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in
what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake
of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet
martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They
rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste
the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]
The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with
guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all
other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]
"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be
victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]
The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil
Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to
remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the
Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness
and arrogance.
If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance
and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose
this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you
were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in
great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate
will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their
military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic
bankruptcy.
This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now
know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission
of Allah, we shall be victorious?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: winmail.dat
winmail.dat Type: DAT File
(application/x-unknown-content-type-DAT_auto_file)
Encoding: base64

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Declaration of War?
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:41:21 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again David!

David G. Lawler wrote to everyone...

> I don't know it looks like a declaration of war to me. I do mean a
> declaration from the nation of Islam not just from Bin Laden.

I wouldn't call it that, since there is no physical "Nation of Islam" that I
am aware of. There is also very little unity as such within what we commonly
call prodominently islamic countries. They've been at war with each other
for about as long as they have been proverbially at war with the 'West'.
Bin Laden is not the leader of any country either, particularly not some
nebulous "Nation of Islam", in which none exists.

On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that Bin Laden has a sizeable
following throughout the islamic world. You don't have to look very far in
such places as Indonesia, Pakistan, Palestine, or even Malaysia, to see the
gravitating of islamic fundamentalism moving in his direction. In fact,
just here in southeast Asia, the main goal for the al-Qaida affiliates is
one giant islamic state strething from Malaysia, Indonesia through the
southern Philippines as their goal. As long as US foreign policy is
perceived to be imperialistic, and militaristically supporting large
corporate interests, I don't see this situation changing any time soon.

In fact, if you read Bin Laden's message carefully, and exclude all of the
Islamic stuff, such as for America to convert to Islam, he has a resounding
resounding audience throughout the islamic world, including all other third
world countries who have a resentment to US imperialism. He is correct, we
have brought this condition, such as it is, largely on ourselves in the last
five decades since the end of the Second World War.

So, I don't read this as a declaration of war, as such, at least not now.
But it could easily become one if islamic fundamentalists capture enough
territory and US aggression becomes the unifying factor to create a scenario
for a protracted war against the west, with the US and our support for the
Israeli government heading the list of grievances.

For the US it will be a can of worms no matter how this shakes out. It's
been our foreign policy, as bin Laden admits, for decades. The American
people have affirmed this foreign policy by electing to office
representatives to support such a militaristic adventurist foreign policy to
prop up US hegemony and imperialism supporting wealthy corporate interests,
and we are hated as a result. Bin Laden will get a resonating chord
throughout the third world by those who see the new "ugly American" as a
reason for their own downtrodden status. It could become infinitely worse
that even the cold war against Communism. The chief difference in THIS war
will be the hearts and minds of the people who become our enemies. They
already have a reason to fight and die for their cause, which is not the
same thing as existed under communist totalitarianism. Think of this as a
grassroots motivation to fight back from the lowest common denominator of
the social classes, a lot like the Maoist revolution that rocked China in
the 1930s-1940s. Even the Soviets thought Mao couldn't pull it off, but he
did anyway.

I'm glad you posted this, and I hope that everyone gives it a very good
read.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THE 12 DAYS of FASCISM
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:17:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

From Ben Ivin.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: THE 12 DAYS of FASCISM
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:07:28 -0700
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
CC: "Wyo LP" <wyolp@zayda.net>

Subject : THE 12 DAYS of FASCISM ~ from Pokerface and Mary Lou
Seymour
Ben********************************************************

Date : Thu, 28 Nov 2002 The Twelve Days of Fascism


On the first day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
A Department of Homeland Security.

On the second day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security

On the third day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the fourth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the fifth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the sixth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the seventh day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the eight day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Eight surveillance cameras,
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the ninth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Nine internment camps,
Eight surveillance cameras,
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the tenth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Ten less amendments,
Nine internment camps,
Eight surveillance cameras,
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the eleventh day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Eleven years protesting,
Ten less amendments,
Nine internment camps,
Eight surveillance cameras,
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,
And a Department of Homeland Security.

On the twelfth day of fascism
John Ashcroft gave to me:
Twelve digital implants,
Eleven years protesting,
Ten less amendments,
Nine internment camps,
Eight surveillance cameras,
Seven TIPsters tipping,
Six snoops a-sniffing,
Five Carnivores....;
Four airport friskings,
Three wiretappings,
Two detained Muslims,

And a Department of Homeland Security!



---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:56:47 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

=========================================================
L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
A N D N E W S G R O U P

A Fidonet Backbone Echo

FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

E-MAIL - moderator@liberty-northwest.org
=========================================================

MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002

Liberty Northwest is a moderated Fidonet Backbone echo. Fidonet
Policy applies. The Fidonet TAG is LIB_NW. Fidonet policy is
Contained in the current edition of Policy 4 of the Fidonet
standards. A copy of such Policy will be provided upon request.
In cases of conflict between policy rules for Liberty Northwest
and Fidonet standards, Fidonet Policy hereby supersedes such
policies as contained herein.

PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective of
Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
"free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.

Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the consequences
of such choices once made.

PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is the
goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup, receiving
news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these goals.

Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the Moderator
reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
and Newsgroup.

Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is discouraged,
as are personal attacks against the character of others participating
regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the Golden
Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to respect
you!

This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and appropriate.
In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with here.
Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.

The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
The obvious that are considered necessary:

1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal communication
between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender communication
or begin a thread or discussion.

2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences are
strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
participants can be established within the Conference itself.
If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has to
download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
off a commercial news or mail server.

2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented information
is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.

3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or ideology,
all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with malice,
will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike" behaviour
will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature are
welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
Conference.

4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.

5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
offended by another participant on the conference, a private NETMAIL
message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
issue.

6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
when it becomes necessary to do so.

Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------